PDA

View Full Version : Stopped for speeding cop ran serial #'s


todd2968
04-02-2011, 3:27 PM
I know this is a re-occurring problem and is an over step for LE. A friend was recently stopped on his way home from shooting and he was properly transporting, but when he was asked if he had any weapons he said "yes" and was detained til officer ran all serial numbers. Nothing happened because all were properly registered. I told him officer had a right to check for weapon transported properly (unloaded &locked up) but no right to run serial number. He said fish and wildlife do this all the time.
I'm looking for correct dialog any penal codes spelling this out, and is there a valid threat(for lack of a better word) that I can present to LE when they violate 4th Amendment?
Thank you for your response.
We are both active duty military, so going to jail for "the cause " is not an option.

BTW he did not consent to any searches.

jtmkinsd
04-02-2011, 3:39 PM
His first mistake was answering the officer's question. It is not a crime to simply state: "I'd rather not answer that sir".

Arguing with LE on the side of the road is a no-win situation. Simply refuse to answer questions, state you do not consent to any searches, and get name and badge number. Afterwards, you can file a complaint. That complaint stays on his/her record forever...the more complaints, the easier it is for the next guy/gal to have some kind of action taken.

bsim
04-02-2011, 3:53 PM
As soon as he said "Yes" I gotta gun, an "e-check" on the serial is authorized. No issue here for the LE.

Shiboleth
04-02-2011, 4:00 PM
As soon as he said "Yes" I gotta gun, an "e-check" on the serial is authorized. No issue here for the LE.

There is no such thing as an e-check on a serial number. An e-check exists solely to confirm the loaded status of a weapon, and in fact LE are explicitly not supposed to "search" for a serial number during this check, but can run it if they come across it as part of their loaded check.

odysseus
04-02-2011, 4:05 PM
I am assuming you mean "registered" because they were handguns.

Question: What if the person was old enough and had a handgun which was not "registered", as before 1990 you could have bought or be gifted a handgun without any registration? Now what then for the LE running serial numbers?

InGrAM
04-02-2011, 4:07 PM
His first mistake was answering the officer's question. It is not a crime to simply state: "I'd rather not answer that sir".

Arguing with LE on the side of the road is a no-win situation. Simply refuse to answer questions, state you do not consent to any searches, and get name and badge number. Afterwards, you can file a complaint. That complaint stays on his/her record forever...the more complaints, the easier it is for the next guy/gal to have some kind of action taken.

+ 1 Your friend should have said this.

Ford8N
04-02-2011, 4:14 PM
It's a no win situation. As soon as you say you will not answer if you have a weapon, you are a suspect. Just the way gun owners are treated in this state.

CSACANNONEER
04-02-2011, 4:22 PM
E-checks have NOTHING to do with SNs. Hell, some of us own completely legal handguns without SNs or "registration" of any kind. Unfortunately, some LEOs and/or some LEAs don't understand or care to understand Ca. and Federal firearms laws 1/10th as well as many of us here (including LEOs here) understand them.

The Shadow
04-02-2011, 4:30 PM
Honesty is not always the best policy.

CitaDeL
04-02-2011, 4:50 PM
A friend was recently stopped on his way home from shooting and he was properly transporting, but when he was asked if he had any weapons he said "yes" and was detained til officer ran all serial numbers.

Have your friend repeat after me...

"I dont have anything I would harm you with."

Or

"I dont have anything illegal with me.'

N6ATF
04-02-2011, 4:54 PM
Honesty is not always the best policy.

You can be honest in saying "I am a human being, not a fish. I would like it if you would conduct your expedition elsewhere."

jl123
04-02-2011, 4:54 PM
Have him file a complaint. Having a firearm is not cause to believe a crime has taken place or is in progress, thus he has no right to search. This has been well established on CGN.

oddjob
04-02-2011, 4:57 PM
Running the serial number was proper in that situation. Remember LEO is not only checking for registration, but for stolen status too. In fact its usually run for that anyways. If the handgun is registered to someone else...back in my day...it was so what? Long as its not stolen.

jl123
04-02-2011, 5:00 PM
Running the serial number was proper in that situation. Remember LEO is not only checking for registration, but for stolen status too. In fact its usually run for that anyways. If the handgun is registered to someone else...back in my day...it was so what? Long as its not stolen.

Ummmmm.....wrong. Having a gun isn't probable cause to believe a crime has taken place or is in progress. This has been established in court. This was a fishing expedition.....pure and simple.

bussda
04-02-2011, 5:01 PM
I am not offering legal advice, I am not a lawyer.

I believe that the e (?) check referenced is to 12031 (e) which concerns verifying unloaded while open carrying. It is not an electronic check as is being presented or a reason to search a vehicle. But until there is a court decision, it will be one of those little injustices. And when presented as an officer safety issue beomes more difficult to properly address.

And while hunting, DFG rules are a little different.

jl123
04-02-2011, 5:05 PM
I am not offering legal advice, I am not a lawyer.

I believe that the e (?) check referenced is to 12031 (e) which concerns verifying unloaded while open carrying. It is not an electronic check as is being presented or a reason to search a vehicle. But until there is a court decision, it will be one of those little injustices. And when presented as an officer safety issue beomes more difficult to properly address.

And while hunting, DFG rules are a little different.

The cops know they can't keep the open carrier in custody while they run the serial number......or go out of their way to search for the number. Does that mean it doesn't happen? No.

CSACANNONEER
04-02-2011, 5:07 PM
Running the serial number was proper in that situation. Remember LEO is not only checking for registration, but for stolen status too. In fact its usually run for that anyways. If the handgun is registered to someone else...back in my day...it was so what? Long as its not stolen.

Do they run the SN on your watch, cel phone, camera, etc. every time they see them? No, that's because there is no reason to suspect that a crime has been committed. Why do you think that it's OK for a LEO to ASSUME that anyone with a firearm is possibly in possession of stolen property? Since, there is NO LAW in Ca requiring ALL firearms to be "registered", what would happen if the SN did not come back to anyone? What about all the perfectly legal firearms without SNs? From the little information given, this was an ILLEGAL search by the officer and was in NO WAY "PROPER".

DiscoBayJoe
04-02-2011, 5:13 PM
Running the serial number was proper in that situation. Remember LEO is not only checking for registration, but for stolen status too. In fact its usually run for that anyways. If the handgun is registered to someone else...back in my day...it was so what? Long as its not stolen.

Where does it stop?

And are they going to run the laptop in the back seat to see if its stolen too?

How about asking for a receipt for the bag of groceries to make sure they weren't shoplifted?

jl123
04-02-2011, 5:14 PM
OP Teach your friend this:

"I do not consent to any searches of my person or property. Can you call your supervisor?"

Shiboleth
04-02-2011, 5:25 PM
Running the serial number was proper in that situation. Remember LEO is not only checking for registration, but for stolen status too. In fact its usually run for that anyways. If the handgun is registered to someone else...back in my day...it was so what? Long as its not stolen.

The officer may "want" to check someone for any of a hundred different things, it doesn't matter. It's not clear from the OP whether the guy refused consent for the searches, but in the presence of a citizen exercising his 4A rights, the ONLY thing an officer is allowed to do (which is unconstitutional) is verify the loaded status of the gun. He can want to check registration, or stolen status, or search the car, or check for prostate cancer. ALL are equally irrelevant.

We have a stupid sub-section of a law that allows LE to byspass the 4A for this one particular thing, but that's it. It's not a hallpass to policestate-ville.

Bhobbs
04-02-2011, 5:30 PM
Running the serial number was proper in that situation. Remember LEO is not only checking for registration, but for stolen status too. In fact its usually run for that anyways. If the handgun is registered to someone else...back in my day...it was so what? Long as its not stolen.

So exercising the 2nd amendment voids the 4th? Interesting...

todd2968
04-02-2011, 5:44 PM
I have to comment ODDJOB it seems you've picked that name perfectly.

Firemark
04-02-2011, 5:52 PM
Its important to note that LE use traffic stops to get past that pesky 4th ammendment. They will try to give any reason that sounds reasonable as an excuse for pulling you over.
I got pulled over once and the reason was because I didnt have mud flaps on my truck. The wheels extended 2 inches past the fenders which meant I according to VC I had to have mud flaps. After license and reg check came back clean, I asked what was the real reason I was pulled over. With a smile came the answer, it was because I was driving down a street with known drug dealers living on it in a truck with a camper shell. The officer was fishing and hoping to catch someone and get a chance to search my vehicle.

Its because you are in your car that they can ask for licensce and reg cause they have you over a barrel so to speak, you must provide those upon demand, its part of your agreement for the DL when you signed with the DMV. Many a criminal has gotten pinched by a traffic stop because they usually do something trivially stupid (like forget to re-register plates, or have a license plate light out) and the LE asks "you dont mind if I search your car, you dont haveany weapons or anything to hide do you?" since you already are submissive by handing over your DL and Reg, plus your probably scared/upset your going to get a ticket for something.

This is the most common LE approach to find something, anything, to stick to a person. And of course to most LE, only criminals carry guns. SO if you respond truthfully to their question, "Do you have any weapons in the car" by saying "yes", not only have you given them a reason to make safe the situation by examining the weapon (for officer safety of course) but in their minds they have just netted a criminal because your carrying a gun.
And only CRIMINALS carry guns.

I highly recommend that anyone who carries a gun, whether its is UOC or concealed, or just a trip to the range and its locked in a case, consider researching and learning about VERBAL JUDO. Most LE agencies spend significant time training officers how to manipulate and control situations and obtain verbal compliance by using these tested techniques. If you better understand the approaches and manipulations you can be prepared to verbally defend yourself.
Because LE will always overstep their authority if they believe they can get away with it and can provide an explanation to any complaint you can come up with. Just be smart and DONT LIE, but be subtley evasive. At least before you dig in your heals and stand up for your rights by saying no. Then of course in the LE eyes you are a criminal for sure cause only criminals argue and refuse.

Verbal judo comments I have found to be very useful to the above question.. "Do you have any weapons in the car?"

"Officer I have nothing illegal in my car, are you searching for an armed criminal in a car that looks like mine?"
"The only ones I can think of are an umbrella and a tire iron."
"Why? was a crime just commited, am I safe?"

all of these are not lies, but they deflect the question and give a space for the officer to make an assumption that you answered negatively to the weapons question. Its also in the way you answer that makes a difference, being a nervous nellie does not help, being relaxed and conversational, jovial or witty can help deflect the absurdity that your a criminal. Its worth a try, because if the officer does'nt bite and keeps pushing for a yes or no answer you're left with telling them 1) yes, which will invite the search 2)no, which would be lieing to an officer--Bad idea--- 3) or not answering at all, which may or may not invite a search. Saying "I dont consent to any searches of myself or property without RAS" will almost definitley provoke a search.
Then you better be ready to cite SCOTUS findings and cases regarding probable cause and the law as you know it. Cause they are most likely going to want to see the weapon, where it is and if its loaded, and what crime they can make stick to you.
my .02.

stix213
04-02-2011, 6:18 PM
Running a serial number won't tell you if it is loaded or not, so has nothing to do with an e-check. This sounds like a violation of constitutional rights if your friend didn't give permission.

BusBoy
04-02-2011, 6:34 PM
1) yes, which will invite the search 2)no, which would be lieing to an officer--Bad idea--- 3) or not answering at all, which may or may not invite a search.

Emphasis mine...

Not that I have a huge post count but... with 50+ posts to your name Im guessing you havent read some of the MANY fine posts with positions on lying to an officer and that its for the most part NOT illegal in this instance.

imtheomegaman
04-02-2011, 6:59 PM
Have your friend repeat after me...

"I dont have anything I would harm you with." snip

Are you freekin nuts?

707electrician
04-02-2011, 7:06 PM
Your friends first mistake was answering the question.

After your friend said yes, the only thing the officer should have done was checked to make sure they were being transported properly and nothing else.

Unless he had reasonable suspicion that the firearm(s) were used in a crime, searching for and running the S/N's was illegal

Zak
04-02-2011, 7:24 PM
So is the consensus to say "I prefer not to answer", or answer in a roundabout way like "There is nothing illegal in this car", or flat out lie and say no?

donny douchebag
04-02-2011, 8:01 PM
Hmmm. I wonder how different their tune would be if some here had a firearm stolen and were hoping to get it back...

CSACANNONEER
04-02-2011, 8:06 PM
Hmmm. I wonder how different their tune would be if some here had a firearm stolen and were hoping to get it back...

I had a dollar bill stolen once. I sure don't expect any LEO to run the SNs of every dollar bill they come across. Hell, there are more GPS navigation systems stolen everyday then firearms. So, why don't they (LEOs) run the SNs of every Nav system they see during traffic stops? Sorry, your arguement is weak at best and doesn't address the fact that it is unconstitutional to run ANY SN without PC or a warrant.

donny douchebag
04-02-2011, 8:11 PM
You know, that absolutist constitutional stuff gets old. As does the "any gun, anytime, anywhere" nonsense. Many here whine about how the antis can't see the reality of living in modern society but they themselves are just as guilty. They see only black and white. No wonder we're considered nuts by the masses...

707electrician
04-02-2011, 8:21 PM
So is the consensus to say "I prefer not to answer", or answer in a roundabout way like "There is nothing illegal in this car", or flat out lie and say no?

I would say that I prefer not to answer. Remember anything you say can be used against you in court. So if the officer happens to find probable cause to search your car and find the gun with a loaded mag in it because you forgot to take it out before putting it in the case, its not going to look good when you are in court and the officer testifies that you lied to him when you said "there is nothing illegal in the car"

Seeker
04-02-2011, 8:31 PM
Hmmm. I wonder how different their tune would be if some here had a firearm stolen and were hoping to get it back...

I doubt the gun thief would admit he has a gun knowing it is stolen.

ldsnet
04-02-2011, 8:34 PM
I hate to hijack a thread, but if the Officer runs the numbers of a handgun, and finds a handgun that is "not on file" because it was not purchased in CA. Then what?

jl123
04-02-2011, 8:36 PM
You know, that absolutist constitutional stuff gets old. As does the "any gun, anytime, anywhere" nonsense. Many here whine about how the antis can't see the reality of living in modern society but they themselves are just as guilty. They see only black and white. No wonder we're considered nuts by the masses...

Are you a fan of may issue CCW too?

hammerhands32
04-02-2011, 8:43 PM
Is there an actual law or penal code that states when and what an officer may search for "officer safety". My buddy was pulled over for a seatbelt ticket and when the officer saw the box of 22 shells he immediately cuffed and placed my friend in his car. He then searched the passenger compartment for weapons (there were none). I know I've seen it somewhere but it may be FUD.

hammerhands32
04-02-2011, 8:46 PM
http://www.fedcoplaw.com/html/searchandseizure_1.html

1. Frisk - Police may frisk a suspect, a vehicle or an unlocked container and retrieve any weapons if Police have RS the suspect is armed and dangerous, Terry v. Ohio (1968), Michigan v. Long (1983).

El Toro
04-02-2011, 8:50 PM
I hate to hijack a thread, but if the Officer runs the numbers of a handgun, and finds a handgun that is "not on file" because it was not purchased in CA. Then what?

He will have to return it to you if its not in the DOJ database. There are thousands of handguns in this state purchased before the law was enacted and no requirement existed for any owners to register those weapons.

However, as others here have posted, the real problem is that the DOJ system has numerous errors and your SN could possibly be transposed with a SN used in a crime or reported stolen. That is the real danger with them processing your SN illegally.

Dutch3
04-02-2011, 9:14 PM
He will have to return it to you if its not in the DOJ database. There are thousands of handguns in this state purchased before the law was enacted and no requirement existed for any owners to register those weapons.

And also thousands of antique handguns and replicas of antique handguns for which there are no transfer or registration requirements.

calixt0
04-02-2011, 9:16 PM
Hmmm. I wonder how different their tune would be if some here had a firearm stolen and were hoping to get it back...

If the Leo agencies made a habit of returning stolen firearms I might (probably not, but might) think this is a valid argument. I have never heard of a LEO agency calling and saying we have found your stolen firearm. I've seen plenty of arrests for stolen firearms but never a return... Again not to say it doesn't happen just never hear of it happening.

N6ATF
04-02-2011, 9:35 PM
Yep, you'd think soon after gun "buybacks" a flurry of guns would be returned to their owners, since they all give the violent felons practically complete immunity from prosecution, there's no need to ballistics test them, no need to hold them for court cases... so either criminals are too paranoid for their own good, or stolen guns are being immediately melted into slag/misappropriated with zero attempt to return them to their owners.

mtsul
04-02-2011, 9:35 PM
Wow some people on here just don't get that our rights are RIGHTS!!! Not privileges I think LEO's and all the US-Government has way to much power, what happened to the good o'll days when if your sheriff was bad you ran him out of town an got a new 1 now they can walk all over your RIGHTS it's a sad time we live in and it's only going to get worse

(and just a FYI I respect and am grateful to all the GOOD LEOs and GoV personal)
And I always will support are men and woman in uniform!!!

Shiboleth
04-02-2011, 10:02 PM
You know, that absolutist constitutional stuff gets old. As does the "any gun, anytime, anywhere" nonsense. Many here whine about how the antis can't see the reality of living in modern society but they themselves are just as guilty. They see only black and white. No wonder we're considered nuts by the masses...

Maybe you're on the wrong website then? This might be more to your liking (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bradycampaign.org%2F&ei=7AyYTdLVIYW2sAPH19CeDQ&usg=AFQjCNGrzuYM_23bdzUakZPoFTqUzL4MUA)

How dare we believe in that absolutist garbage like the idea that if i haven't committed a crime, leave me the **** alone...

Firemark
04-02-2011, 10:09 PM
Emphasis mine...

Not that I have a huge post count but... with 50+ posts to your name Im guessing you havent read some of the MANY fine posts with positions on lying to an officer and that its for the most part NOT illegal in this instance.

My post never said anything about being illegal, I said it was a bad idea.

Commenting on the number of posts I have made, means your making a very poor guess as to how well read I am.

Thats the essence of verbal judo, You immediately jumped to the conclusion I meant telling a lie to LE was illegal. When thats not what I wrote.

And also what you say before your mirandized is not admisable in court. So saying "There is nothing illegal in my car" even if its incorrect is fruit of the poison tree. If one is stupid enough to transport firearms in any way other than the legal manner, you shouldnt be carrying.

Until all the stupid laws are changed by law makers, playing by the rules is your best defense.

Shiboleth
04-02-2011, 10:12 PM
Hmmm. I wonder how different their tune would be if some here had a firearm stolen and were hoping to get it back...

Considering the fact that had someone stolen my firearm and was subsequently pulled over by a LE and asked "do you have any weapons in the car?", there's no way in hell the guy is going to admit to it, and also considering that it wouldn't likely be returned to me if a LEO did find it, my tune wouldn't change a bit.

Don't try to justify the means utilized by LE by pointing to the end. The 4A stands as a direct roadblock to the overreaching of the government for a very good reason.

gunsmith
04-02-2011, 10:24 PM
I have had a firearm stolen, and no way do I support 4th Amendment violations, I do hope to get it back but not at the cost of constitutional violations by LE!

Scratch705
04-02-2011, 10:34 PM
i'm going to point to my biceps and say, "Do these howitzers count?"

TurboChrisB
04-02-2011, 10:38 PM
Recovered stolen firearms get returned all the time.

tyrist
04-02-2011, 10:42 PM
The real issue isn't running the serial numbers as they are in plain view and the Officer would be in lawful possession of the firearms for the duration of the stop. The issue that seems to have passed all of you is the fact the stop was extended beyond writing just the ticket without any additional information of a possible crime.

The Geologist
04-02-2011, 10:45 PM
I know this is a re-occurring problem and is an over step for LE. A friend was recently stopped on his way home from shooting and he was properly transporting, but when he was asked if he had any weapons he said "yes" and was detained til officer ran all serial numbers. Nothing happened because all were properly registered. I told him officer had a right to check for weapon transported properly (unloaded &locked up) but no right to run serial number. He said fish and wildlife do this all the time.
I'm looking for correct dialog any penal codes spelling this out, and is there a valid threat(for lack of a better word) that I can present to LE when they violate 4th Amendment?
Thank you for your response.
We are both active duty military, so going to jail for "the cause " is not an option.

BTW he did not consent to any searches.

Your friend was stopped for "allegedly" speeding. Why would the LEO ask if he had any weapons? That has nothing to do with the issue of speeding. I think your friend should have reverted to the task at hand, which was the alleged speeding violation, not the about the weapons I might have. A chopstick can be a weapon if you know how to use it properly.

Apocalypsenerd
04-02-2011, 10:48 PM
A look at donny's posts suggests troll status. 20-30 posts read and he seems to be playing devils advocate to pro-2A statements. I didn't see one pro-2A statement on his behalf.

cmth
04-02-2011, 10:51 PM
There is no reason to ever answer a police officer's question while being detained, no matter how you answer it. If you get pulled over, hand them your DL and paperwork, and then shut your mouth and don't open it. You don't even have to say hello. You may not get away with just a warning by following this procedure, but then again you probably should have been obeying their laws if you didn't want to get stopped in the first place. You take the risk, and sometimes you get caught. Every cop loves to go fishing now and again, and sometimes you are the fish. Don't bite.

Glock_Toter
04-02-2011, 11:04 PM
Your friend was stopped for "allegedly" speeding. Why would the LEO ask if he had any weapons? That has nothing to do with the issue of speeding. I think your friend should have reverted to the task at hand, which was the alleged speeding violation, not the about the weapons I might have. A chopstick can be a weapon if you know how to use it properly.

+1
Ditto. But I am sure the BS excuse of officer safety is going to used to trample someones rights. :mad:

Vacaville
04-02-2011, 11:08 PM
A look at donny's posts suggests troll status. 20-30 posts read and he seems to be playing devils advocate to pro-2A statements. I didn't see one pro-2A statement on his behalf.

+1

From his post history he seems to be very much for stricter gun control with himself being the exception since he is a "gun owner" and not a "gun nut" (his own terms) like all the rest of us. He's either an anti or an elitist who thinks that most people don't need or deserve to be armed.

snobord99
04-03-2011, 12:03 AM
And also what you say before your mirandized is not admisable in court. So saying "There is nothing illegal in my car" even if its incorrect is fruit of the poison tree. If one is stupid enough to transport firearms in any way other than the legal manner, you shouldnt be carrying.

This is not necessarily correct. Statements made without an advisement of your right to remain silent per Miranda v. Arizona are only fruit of the poisonous tree if it was a custodial interrogation. In the case of "there is nothing illegal in my car," there's a good chance that that statement was made before the person making the statement was arrested and Miranda wouldn't apply.

If this scenario happens to you, this is exactly how the encounter should go down:

Cop: Do you know why I pulled you over?
You: [whatever you want to say]
Cop: Do you have any weapons in the car?
You: With all due respect Officer ______, why don't we keep this encounter about the reason you pulled me over so that we could both move on with our day.

That's it. No need to lie, no need to answer with an eyebrow raising response of "I have nothing illegal in the car." Just politely request that they don't go fishing.

G1500
04-03-2011, 12:08 AM
i'm going to point to my biceps and say, "Do these howitzers count?"

Whoa, whoa....Put the weapons down sir.....

BKinzey
04-03-2011, 12:16 AM
...And also what you say before your mirandized is not admisable in court....

Very, very, wrong. If you are pulled over for a broken tail light and the first thing you tell the officer is "I have a dead person in the trunk." You can be certain that statement will be used against you in court and it won't matter one whit if you were mirandized or not before making the statement.

Werewolf1021
04-03-2011, 2:24 AM
You know, that absolutist constitutional stuff gets old. As does the "any gun, anytime, anywhere" nonsense. Many here whine about how the antis can't see the reality of living in modern society but they themselves are just as guilty. They see only black and white. No wonder we're considered nuts by the masses...

Yeah. Darn that Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, etc for setting up a document based on Liberty! Who needs liberty when the cops can protect you.

In fact, you have an absolutist view. Why do you need a gun, huh? Cops are there, right? In this modern society we don't really need a "2nd amendment" now do we?

How about you surrender them, for the good of society?
:rolleyes:

http://www.zeldauniverse.net/forums/members/9839-link-the-zora-albums-funny-pictures-from-internet-random-pictures-i-did-picture11961-freedom-be-crazy.bmp

Werewolf1021
04-03-2011, 2:30 AM
Whoa, whoa....Put the weapons down sir.....

More like ".... where's the serial number?" ;)

VAReact
04-03-2011, 6:39 AM
http://www.fedcoplaw.com/html/searchandseizure_1.html

1. Frisk - Police may frisk a suspect, a vehicle or an unlocked container and retrieve any weapons if Police have RS the suspect is armed and dangerous, Terry v. Ohio (1968), Michigan v. Long (1983).

So, all gun owners are DANGEROUS, then?!? Armed does not necessarily equate to dangerous

EOD Guy
04-03-2011, 7:01 AM
If the Leo agencies made a habit of returning stolen firearms I might (probably not, but might) think this is a valid argument. I have never heard of a LEO agency calling and saying we have found your stolen firearm. I've seen plenty of arrests for stolen firearms but never a return... Again not to say it doesn't happen just never hear of it happening.

I've had three returned to me. One by the Oakland PD, one by the Fremont PD, and one by the CHP. They were all stolen in the same burglary before I got smart and bought a safe. There were two others taken that weren't recovered.

CitaDeL
04-03-2011, 7:07 AM
So, all gun owners are DANGEROUS, then?!? Armed does not necessarily equate to dangerous

This.

Terry would put the officer in the position of articulating what made you 'dangerous' and justify seizing your property.

Unfortunately, most officers will cite "officer safety" as their justification even when they cannot point to any fact that would make you any more dangerous than any unarmed subject.

jnojr
04-03-2011, 7:10 AM
His first mistake was answering the officer's question. It is not a crime to simply state: "I'd rather not answer that sir".

That's as much as saying yes.

Just say no. It is not a crime to lie to a cop. Heck, they're specially protected when they lie to you! Why give them any (un)reasonable suspicion that they need to search your car?

There is zero upside to prolonging any unconsensual contact with law enforcement. I am pretty damn far from "hating cops", but if I'm encountering one in an adversarial situation that I am not free to walk away from, I'm going to give the shortest answers possible, monosyllabic if possible, and not giving them the slightest scrap of purchase to climb into my life further. What's in my trunk is of no business of theirs, none, nada, period, zip, zilch; unless they have a warrant or feel they can articulate reasonable cause... in which case the only word out of my mouth is going to be, "Lawyer". I'll go two syllables then.

jnojr
04-03-2011, 7:13 AM
If the Leo agencies made a habit of returning stolen firearms I might (probably not, but might) think this is a valid argument. I have never heard of a LEO agency calling and saying we have found your stolen firearm. I've seen plenty of arrests for stolen firearms but never a return... Again not to say it doesn't happen just never hear of it happening.

I've had one returned.

I will add, though, that my mom worked closely with the PD in question, and the lead detective on the case was a good friend of hers. He called us in to identify the recovered property, we did, and I walked out with my crappy little .22 in a box with some other stuff. I doubt we did more than sign a receipt. It's very likely that, were we "Joe Citizen", getting that gun back would have been quite a bit more troublesome.

jnojr
04-03-2011, 7:15 AM
Have your friend repeat after me...

"I dont have anything I would harm you with."

Or

"I dont have anything illegal with me.'

"Evasive answers" simply lead to further investigation. There's no point. Either say "No", and be one with your life; or say "Yes" and pay the price for "honesty". There is point in playing games.

jnojr
04-03-2011, 7:16 AM
Running the serial number was proper in that situation. Remember LEO is not only checking for registration, but for stolen status too. In fact its usually run for that anyways. If the handgun is registered to someone else...back in my day...it was so what? Long as its not stolen.

Can they pull the stereo out of your dash to verify that it isn't stolen? How about just do a quick "inventory" of your vehicle to determine that nothing is stolen? Surely you couldn't argue with either of those, right?

jtmkinsd
04-03-2011, 7:18 AM
God this thread goes on and on and on...say this, don't say that say this.

"I'd rather not answer that sir." that's it...nothing more, nothing less.

Now...if you get an "excitable" officer, this will draw his interest...and he/she may start asking more questions...again, "I'd rather not answer that sir." Followed by a "what was the reason you stopped me?" and when he tells you..."are you going to cite me?"...you get the idea.

Thing is, you don't have to answer ANY questions...you can hand over your license/registration/insurance and play like a deaf mute if you want to. I always just thought it more courteous to respond...just not the way the officer would like perhapse.


Oh, and for those advocating outright lying to police...yeah, nothing illegal about it...but ask any cop what they can and will do if they catch you lying to them...especially when it involves guns. That's just REALLY stupid advice.

GrizzlyGuy
04-03-2011, 7:27 AM
So is the consensus to say "I prefer not to answer", or answer in a roundabout way like "There is nothing illegal in this car", or flat out lie and say no?

The former (politely and respectfully decline to answer the question). See here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3551753&posted=1#post3551753) for why the other options are bad ideas.

Is there an actual law or penal code that states when and what an officer may search for "officer safety". My buddy was pulled over for a seatbelt ticket and when the officer saw the box of 22 shells he immediately cuffed and placed my friend in his car. He then searched the passenger compartment for weapons (there were none). I know I've seen it somewhere but it may be FUD.

The search was legal in that case. Read this excellent document on vehicle searches (http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/F09_VEHICLE_SEARCHES.pdf) to understand why. See also United States v. Richards (http://openjurist.org/967/f2d/1189) as the facts of the case are similar (other than your friend being lawful vs. Richards transporting pot):

..The officer then asked for Richards' consent to a search of his car, which Richards refused. Additional officers were called to the scene and one of the officers went to Richards' car to ask Harp to step outside. In doing so, the officer noticed a box of .22 caliber shells sitting on the console inside Richards' car. After seeing the shells, the officers searched the passenger compartment looking for weapons. They discovered several burn holes in the carpet on the driver's side of the compartment and a small amount of marijuana. At this point, Richards and Harp were placed under arrest for possession of marijuana...

That case was in 8th circuit, but our 9th circuit would likely use the same logic.

choprzrul
04-03-2011, 7:28 AM
http://www.cowanauctions.com/itemImages/small/sm_tee1229.jpg

The Llama Comanche III has its serial number located under the lumber. Makes me wonder what LE would do when encountering a handgun with a serial number that is not in plain view?

Given that SLOSD just turned down my CCW app, I am seriously considering UOC with such a weapon. I would carry the Llama specifically so that they can't run the serial number. Really getting tired of jackwagons that violate civil rights on a whim.

.

ElToro
04-03-2011, 7:29 AM
Very, very, wrong. If you are pulled over for a broken tail light and the first thing you tell the officer is "I have a dead person in the trunk." You can be certain that statement will be used against you in court and it won't matter one whit if you were mirandized or not before making the statement.

then when the supervisor shows up and asks why you said dead body, you say, "did he also tell you i was speeding and had guns? " :)

but seriously folks. this 4A stuff is just as serious as all the others

707electrician
04-03-2011, 7:31 AM
The former (politely and respectfully decline to answer the question). See here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3551753&posted=1#post3551753) for why the other options are bad ideas.

Those are the videos I was looking for. Must watch



The search was legal in that case. Read this excellent document on vehicle searches (http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/F09_VEHICLE_SEARCHES.pdf) to understand why. See also United States v. Richards (http://openjurist.org/967/f2d/1189) as the facts of the case are similar (other than your friend being lawful vs. Richards transporting pot):



That case was in 8th circuit, but our 9th circuit would likely use the same logic.

That is ridiculous. Have a box of ammo sitting out in your car should not be reasonable suspicion that there is a weapon in the car

GrizzlyGuy
04-03-2011, 7:40 AM
That is ridiculous. Have a box of ammo sitting out in your car should not be reasonable suspicion that there is a weapon in the car

Actually, I need to correct myself. The search may not have been legal since hammerhands32 reports that his friend was already cuffed and in the police car prior to the search for weapons being executed. That's because of the later SCOTUS ruling in Arizona v. Gant (2009). The impact of Gant on this type of incident is explained in the Vehicle Search document I linked to above. It's also explained here (http://flexyourrights.org/gant_ruling):

“The Supreme Court ruled today in Arizona v. Gant that vehicle searches following an arrest are legal only if the suspect has access to the vehicle or if officers reasonably believe the vehicle contains evidence related to that arrest. In other words, police are now required to have an actual reason to justify the vehicle search, instead of being allowed to do it automatically.”

If you are cuffed and in a police car, you no longer have access to your vehicle. Performing an 'officer safety' search of your vehicle for weapons is therefore not reasonable and would violate your 4A rights.

707electrician
04-03-2011, 8:08 AM
That says that searches are legal "following an arrest". It sounds like his friend was pulled over and removed from the car and detained because of a box of ammo in the car. No arrest

Old4eyes
04-03-2011, 8:53 AM
Is there an actual law or penal code that states when and what an officer may search for "officer safety". My buddy was pulled over for a seatbelt ticket and when the officer saw the box of 22 shells he immediately cuffed and placed my friend in his car. He then searched the passenger compartment for weapons (there were none). I know I've seen it somewhere but it may be FUD.

Check out this article citing court rulings on probable cause:
http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/PC_Search.pdf

The pertinent section of the document (which opened my eyes) is:

"AMMO FIREARMS: Because officers saw a bullet on the console of the suspectís car, they might reasonably believe there was a firearm somewhere
in the passenger compartment.

People v. DeCosse (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 404, 411."

Although I am very careful to transport my weapons legally, and even going beyond what >> I << believe to be legal (magazines are empty) I now do the following:

Since I don't have a trunk, the locked containers are jammed as much as possible under the rear seat of my truck and then covered with jackets and/or tarps. I don't need to have an officer state that he saw what looked like a case for transporting firearms thereby (in his view) that he has probable cause to verify that the are being transported legally.

CSACANNONEER
04-03-2011, 9:21 AM
You know, that absolutist constitutional stuff gets old. As does the "any gun, anytime, anywhere" nonsense. Many here whine about how the antis can't see the reality of living in modern society but they themselves are just as guilty. They see only black and white. No wonder we're considered nuts by the masses...

You are right. We really should just forget about all old laws. Who cares if they are the supreme laws of this country. Hell, the speeding laws ae old too. Maybe we should just do away with all laws and all law enforcement? Then, nothing would be illegal and there would be no illegal searches.:rolleyes:

Veggie
04-03-2011, 10:01 AM
You know, that absolutist constitutional stuff gets old. As does the "any gun, anytime, anywhere" nonsense. Many here whine about how the antis can't see the reality of living in modern society but they themselves are just as guilty. They see only black and white. No wonder we're considered nuts by the masses...

You don't understand the constitution. Maybe you should go spy on another forum for your bosses.

cruising7388
04-03-2011, 10:47 AM
what happened to the good o'll days when if your sheriff was bad you ran him out of town an got a new 1

True enough, but the flip side of them good ole days is that if the sheriff didn't like the cut of your jib he could run you out of town and there wasn't much you could do about it.

cruising7388
04-03-2011, 10:55 AM
A chopstick can be a weapon if you know how to use it properly.

How am I ever gonna use chopsticks as a weapon considering I've never been able to master eating food with the damn things?

Mofo-Kang
04-03-2011, 11:34 AM
Yeah. Darn that Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, etc for setting up a document based on Liberty! Who needs liberty when the cops can protect you.

It's kind of funny to think that back in the days of the Founders, there really were no "police" in a form similar to what we have today. Gotta wonder what they'd make of these institutions we have now...

tyrist
04-03-2011, 11:41 AM
Can they pull the stereo out of your dash to verify that it isn't stolen? How about just do a quick "inventory" of your vehicle to determine that nothing is stolen? Surely you couldn't argue with either of those, right?

The serial number on a stereo would not be in plain view and he would have no reason to be in possession of it. When you are detained the Officer can lawfully take possession of any weapons you may have. The serial numbers of firearms would then usually be in plain view and allow the Officer to run them. He can not however extend the length of the detention to run those serial numbers.

Glock22Fan
04-03-2011, 11:52 AM
When you guys are all commenting "Well, they don't run the serial numbers of your satnav, do they?" I hope you are aware that whenever there is a black and white behind you, whether in your lane or the next one, there's a fair chance that he or she is running your car's license plates. They catch a lot of untaxed or stolen cars and crooks with outstanding warrents by that method.

More than once I have been on ride-alongs with the LEO driving fast with one hand, talking on the radio while operating the MDT with the other hand, running plates on the cars he's following.

How is that constitutionally different from running a firearm's serial number if they happen to see it during an e-check?

blakdawg
04-03-2011, 12:20 PM
More than once I have been on ride-alongs with the LEO driving fast with one hand, talking on the radio while operating the MDT with the other hand, running plates on the cars he's following.

How is that constitutionally different from running a firearm's serial number if they happen to see it during an e-check?

Not everyone thinks e-checks are constitutional.

Ignoring that for a moment, the LEO isn't making the driver(s) of those cars stop and wait while they run the stolen vehicle check - if the car isn't stolen, the drivers aren't hassled at all, and probably don't even know the check has occurred.

Running the serial number(s) as part of an e-check typically involves waiting for the records to come back, which can take awhile .. and the possessor of the firearms is not free to leave, either from the LEO's perspective, or from the possessor's perspective, if he wants to hang on to his guns.

Also, the serial numbers probably didn't start out in plain/public view - they may have ended up visible to the LEO during the e-check (which is not universally accepted as constitutionally defensible), but it might also be that the serial number on a laptop or camera, for example, also became visible during the e-check. Do you believe it would be constitutional for an LEO to detain you while running a serial number check on a laptop and a camera discovered during an e-check?

Is there, in your opinion, any limit on the serial number "checking" a LEO can do following a legit traffic stop, absent specific articulable facts suggesting the property is evidence/fruits of a crime?

I don't see the central issue as the lookup in the database - it's the nonconsensual detention of the item and the possessor during the lookup that's constitutionally problematic. From a privacy point of view I'm not crazy about the database lookup, but I think that's a tougher case to make, legally speaking.

707electrician
04-03-2011, 12:28 PM
When you guys are all commenting "Well, they don't run the serial numbers of your satnav, do they?" I hope you are aware that whenever there is a black and white behind you, whether in your lane or the next one, there's a fair chance that he or she is running your car's license plates. They catch a lot of untaxed or stolen cars and crooks with outstanding warrents by that method.

More than once I have been on ride-alongs with the LEO driving fast with one hand, talking on the radio while operating the MDT with the other hand, running plates on the cars he's following.

How is that constitutionally different from running a firearm's serial number if they happen to see it during an e-check?

License plate numbers are in plain view and are essentially public information

RGERBER
04-03-2011, 1:16 PM
I have considered getting stopped for something while commuting to or from the gun range.
If I get pulled over and he ask me anything, I plan on saying officer it is important you know what I am about to say is with all due respect to you and the law.
I need to reach for my wallet in my wallet is my D.L. my CCW permit and a business card from my 2nd amendment attorney , Bruce Colodny on that back of that card are several general rules if I get pulled over by police. Some of the rules are on the card and some I have just memorized; they are as follows I will not consent to any search of any kind. , . I will not speak to you and invoke my 5th amendment right to be silent. Also am I being detained or am I free to go, and last is if am going to be arrested I wish to speak to my attorney. – (I also have I do not consent stickers on my gun
cases)

I plan on giving him time to digest all this run my D.L. and ask again am I being detained or am I free to go?

I have two copies of this behind my D.L.
Officer,
With all due respect to you and the law,
I need to say up front several things,
Need to give you,
Driver’s License.
Registration.
CCW permit. – Optional
Bruce Colondny - business card optional
1-800-560-8000
Must say:
I do not consent to any search of any kind.
I invoke my Fifth Amendment right to be silent.
Am I being detained or am I free to go.


It’s the best I can come up with; I will gladly accept any suggestions.

jnojr
04-03-2011, 2:19 PM
Oh, and for those advocating outright lying to police...yeah, nothing illegal about it...but ask any cop what they can and will do if they catch you lying to them...especially when it involves guns. That's just REALLY stupid advice.

If they "catch you lying to them", you were going to get rung up anyway. And there's nothing they can do to you for "lying".

So... how, exactly, is it "stupid" to just say no?

Telling them things they don't need to know, or waffling around... now those are stupid things to do.

jnojr
04-03-2011, 2:22 PM
That is ridiculous. Have a box of ammo sitting out in your car should not be reasonable suspicion that there is a weapon in the car

Coulda-woulda-shoulda. It doesn't matter. If you let them poke their nose into your business, that's never going to be a positive thing for you. The absolute best case for you is they find nothing. And it all goes downhill from there.

jnojr
04-03-2011, 2:35 PM
I have considered getting stopped for something while commuting to or from the gun range.
If I get pulled over and he ask me anything, I plan on saying officer it is important you know what I am about to say is with all due respect to you and the law.
I need to reach for my wallet in my wallet is my D.L. my CCW permit and a business card from my 2nd amendment attorney , Bruce Colodny on that back of that card are several general rules if I get pulled over by police. Some of the rules are on the card and some I have just memorized; they are as follows I will not consent to any search of any kind. , . I will not speak to you and invoke my 5th amendment right to be silent. Also am I being detained or am I free to go, and last is if am going to be arrested I wish to speak to my attorney. Ė (I also have I do not consent stickers on my gun
cases)

Why?

If you're carrying and have a CCW, then yeah, tell him.

Other than that, why invite him into your life? Your recitation is a screaming admission that you have something to hide. He was about to give you a ticket, maybe a warning if you were lucky. You've just told him there's something very exciting going on, and at a minimum, you're going to sit there while he questions you, asks you what you have to hide, and the whole time is looking for the tiniest excuse to haul you out of the car, cuff you, and perform a search "for his safety"... and to look for any other minute hint of anything that he can call "reasonable suspicion" to really go through your vehicle.

And all for what? Hand him your license and registration. If he asks you, "Do you have any <insert contraband here> in the vehicle"... JUST SAY NO, like Nancy Reagan says. That's what any "honest" person does. They don't start waffling around about how they're going to call a lawyer, and here's his card, and I know my rights... that's waving a red flag in front of the bull. If he's already decided he's going to search you and your car anyway, then your cute games weren't going to save you anyway. And if he finds your guns, you're in no more or less trouble than you were going to be in if you'd told him so.

Dealing with cops is like dealing with vampires. You have to invite them in, but there are a lot of ways you can do that without knowing it. Shut your mouth, tell them the absolute minimum necessary, and specifically deny them consent after they ask. If they want to give you a ticket and be on their way, LET THEM! My God, why would you want to wind up being interviewed/interrogated over completely unrelated matters which might result in further inconvenience to you?

I prefer to not get pulled over at all. Last time for me was about 9 years ago, and before that was probably another 9 years. But if I am... why volunteer anything? When was the last time a cop told anyone, "Well, I found you with things I'm unhappy about, but because you were honest with me, I'm just going to give it all back and let you be on your way?" Answer: Never. Minimum, you're going to spend time answering questions, or evading them, until he searches or admits he has no cause to search. How long might that be? An hour? More? He's getting paid the whole time. Are you? He likes being in that situation, where he might get another arrest out of the deal. What positive outcome awaits you?

Sniper3142
04-03-2011, 2:51 PM
Until all the stupid laws are changed by law makers, playing by the rules is your best defense.

Wrong.

The best defense, is to Not Play At All.

Volunteer NO information beyond what is LEGALLY required. Refuse to answer any and all questions not directly related to the Reason for the Traffic Stop.

Verbal Judo can work Both Ways. ;)

jtmkinsd
04-03-2011, 2:57 PM
If they "catch you lying to them", you were going to get rung up anyway. And there's nothing they can do to you for "lying".

So... how, exactly, is it "stupid" to just say no?

Complete assumptions about "what was going to happen anyway" get you nothing. Either be totally honest, or don't say anything...it's a simple concept. Lying, or misleading statements go into the report (if arrested) and a jury really likes a smart azz who thinks a statement can't be used against them.

When was the last time a cop told anyone, "Well, I found you with things I'm unhappy about, but because you were honest with me, I'm just going to give it all back and let you be on your way?" Answer: Never.

On several occasions in my misspent youth I was let go for being brutally honest with LE. On one occasion many years ago, I had spent way too long at the bar. Upon getting in my truck and pulling onto the road, I was lit up by an Oklahoma state trooper. First question he asked me was "how much have you had to drink tonight?" Without missing a beat I told him "two or three pitchers". He told me I was the first person to actually give an honest answer to that question in a long time. He brought me back to his cruiser where he allowed me to call AAA to come get my truck and said I could ride home with the tow truck driver.

Never say never...because you don't know...and giving crap advice to others about what you know nothing of is...well...stupid.

jl123
04-03-2011, 3:11 PM
Complete assumptions about "what was going to happen anyway" get you nothing. Either be totally honest, or don't say anything...it's a simple concept. Lying, or misleading statements go into the report (if arrested) and a jury really likes a smart azz who thinks a statement can't be used against them.



On several occasions in my misspent youth I was let go for being brutally honest with LE. On one occasion many years ago, I had spent way too long at the bar. Upon getting in my truck and pulling onto the road, I was lit up by an Oklahoma state trooper. First question he asked me was "how much have you had to drink tonight?" Without missing a beat I told him "two or three pitchers". He told me I was the first person to actually give an honest answer to that question in a long time. He brought me back to his cruiser where he allowed me to call AAA to come get my truck and said I could ride home with the tow truck driver.

Never say never...because you don't know...and giving crap advice to others about what you know nothing of is...well...stupid.

You're giving bad advice due to one encounter you personally experienced.

Glock22Fan
04-03-2011, 3:14 PM
Complete assumptions about "what was going to happen anyway" get you nothing. Either be totally honest, or don't say anything...it's a simple concept. Lying, or misleading statements go into the report (if arrested) and a jury really likes a smart azz who thinks a statement can't be used against them.



On several occasions in my misspent youth I was let go for being brutally honest with LE. On one occasion many years ago, I had spent way too long at the bar. Upon getting in my truck and pulling onto the road, I was lit up by an Oklahoma state trooper. First question he asked me was "how much have you had to drink tonight?" Without missing a beat I told him "two or three pitchers". He told me I was the first person to actually give an honest answer to that question in a long time. He brought me back to his cruiser where he allowed me to call AAA to come get my truck and said I could ride home with the tow truck driver.

Never say never...because you don't know...and giving crap advice to others about what you know nothing of is...well...stupid.

Reminds me of the guy they arrested on Alaska Troopers the other day. He was driving at speeds up to 100 mph, running stop signs etc. and ignoring the cops trying to flash him down. When he finally stopped, he freely explained that he hadn't noticed the cops because he had drunk a dozen cans or so of beer (while driving), been smoking pot, was feeling shakey because he was a diabetic and furthermore, he had been texting while they tried to light him up. No, they did not let him go.

jtmkinsd
04-03-2011, 3:31 PM
Reminds me of the guy they arrested on Alaska Troopers the other day. He was driving at speeds up to 100 mph, running stop signs etc. and ignoring the cops trying to flash him down. When he finally stopped, he freely explained that he hadn't noticed the cops because he had drunk a dozen cans or so of beer (while driving), been smoking pot, was feeling shakey because he was a diabetic and furthermore, he had been texting while they tried to light him up. No, they did not let him go.

LOL...that's funny right there.

jl123,

The only advice I've given here is to either stay silent, or speak the truth. Anyone who wishes to call that "bad advice" is welcome to their opinion (as misguided as it may be). Oh, and I seem to recall stating on several occasions I've gotten a pass for being honest...read closer. Ask the question in the LEO forum, many of them will tell you being honest will go a long way when you're dealing with them. Unless you believe they all lie, and exist only to infringe on your rights. :rolleyes:

Riodog
04-03-2011, 3:33 PM
I have considered getting stopped for something while commuting to or from the gun range.
If I get pulled over and he ask me anything, I plan on saying officer it is important you know what I am about to say is with all due respect to you and the law.
I need to reach for my wallet in my wallet is my D.L. my CCW permit and a business card from my 2nd amendment attorney , Bruce Colodny on that back of that card are several general rules if I get pulled over by police. Some of the rules are on the card and some I have just memorized; they are as follows I will not consent to any search of any kind. , . I will not speak to you and invoke my 5th amendment right to be silent. Also am I being detained or am I free to go, and last is if am going to be arrested I wish to speak to my attorney. Ė (I also have I do not consent stickers on my gun
cases)

I plan on giving him time to digest all this run my D.L. and ask again am I being detained or am I free to go?

I have two copies of this behind my D.L.
Officer,
With all due respect to you and the law,
I need to say up front several things,
Need to give you,
Driverís License.
Registration.
CCW permit. Ė Optional
Bruce Colondny - business card optional
1-800-560-8000
Must say:
I do not consent to any search of any kind.
I invoke my Fifth Amendment right to be silent.
Am I being detained or am I free to go.


Itís the best I can come up with; I will gladly accept any suggestions.

Only one. You can do better in the attorney catagory.
Rio

jl123
04-03-2011, 3:43 PM
LOL...that's funny right there.

jl123,

The only advice I've given here is to either stay silent, or speak the truth. Anyone who wishes to call that "bad advice" is welcome to their opinion (as misguided as it may be). Oh, and I seem to recall stating on several occasions I've gotten a pass for being honest...read closer. Ask the question in the LEO forum, many of them will tell you being honest will go a long way when you're dealing with them. Unless you believe they all lie, and exist only to infringe on your rights. :rolleyes:

Do they all lie? No. Are there enough bad cops out there to worry about? Oh yeah.

If you asked in the LEO forum if anyone would joke about proning out an open carrier and if they make any furtive movements, two weeks off......do you think any of them would admit that they would make comments like that? I would guess they wouldn't......but the guy that did that was a member here.

repubconserv
04-03-2011, 3:45 PM
The Majority of advice I have seen has been "I have nothing illegal" If the officer continues to search your car anyways be sure and state clearly you dont consent to searches

I also saw the suggestion of video camera for the off chance that a cop will go too far


Maybe you're on the wrong website then? This might be more to your liking (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bradycampaign.org%2F&ei=7AyYTdLVIYW2sAPH19CeDQ&usg=AFQjCNGrzuYM_23bdzUakZPoFTqUzL4MUA)

What are assault clips? :D First thing I saw when it popped up

jl123
04-03-2011, 3:48 PM
The Majority of advice I have seen has been "I have nothing illegal" If the officer continues to search your car anyways be sure and state clearly you dont consent to searches

I also saw the suggestion of video camera for the off chance that a cop will go too far




What are assault clips? :D First thing I saw when it popped up

That's the new term they are trying to make popular to make magazines sound scary.

D Harry
04-03-2011, 4:19 PM
jnojr... has it right. YOU DON"T TELL THEM ****!

When asked if you have any weapons, you should answer straight to their face without hesitation "No sir, I don't have anything like that."

Much the same as a sobriety checkpoint....'Have you had anything to drink tonight?" Immediate answer should be "No sir, I haven't"

If you say yes, THEY HAVE TO LOOK AT THE GUN AND WHATEVER ELSE IS IN YOUR CAR.... or then determine how much you have had to drink, and that means pull the car over.

Much the same when entering Canada via auto... "Do you have any tobacco or alcohol?"
Answer is "No, we have nothing like that." If you say yes, THEY HAVE TO LOOK THROUGH THE WHOLE CAR. any many times they don't want to.. but you have screwed yourself!

Theseus
04-03-2011, 4:48 PM
I think it interesting that no one has aid yet -

12031(e) does not give permission to check the loaded condition of any and all firearms in any and all cases, only permission to check when they might be in violation of 12031.

Let me remember. . . People v Cook? Knight? or DeLong? I can't remember anymore. But one of them dealt with this issue of public roads, guns, unincorporated areas.

Theseus
04-03-2011, 4:53 PM
Only one. You can do better in the attorney catagory.
Rio

I am sure you aren't suggesting there is something wrong with choosing Bruce, because my personal experience with him is that he is a greatly capable lawyer.

Had it not been for his knowledge and connections, my trial could have ended up much worst, and so too could have my appeal.

jl123
04-03-2011, 4:56 PM
I think it interesting that no one has aid yet -

12031(e) does not give permission to check the loaded condition of any and all firearms in any and all cases, only permission to check when they might be in violation of 12031.

Let me remember. . . People v Cook? Knight? or DeLong? I can't remember anymore. But one of them dealt with this issue of public roads, guns, unincorporated areas.


Ohhhhh......good catch!

Quser.619
04-03-2011, 5:02 PM
While I haven't had this happen, if asked if I had any fire arms in my car & I'd say no. Since the firearms would be unloaded (& in a locked container) they wouldn't be functional weapons. I wouldn't be lying. I never leave the locked containers or any long guns uncovered for this reason.

If the officer is Federal, it would be yes sir, they're locked & unloaded.

HondaMasterTech
04-03-2011, 5:07 PM
Honesty is not always the best policy.

Lying and "not telling the truth" are two different things.

jtmkinsd
04-03-2011, 5:51 PM
Lying and "not telling the truth" are two different things.

You must be an elected official. :rolleyes:

RGERBER
04-03-2011, 6:34 PM
If I only had my Carry gun it would be different, I was talking about a truck full of guns and mags.

Drivedabizness
04-03-2011, 7:00 PM
As a veteran and based on my own experience, I can't think of a lot of betters ways (or worse, depending on your POV) to lose a stripe than to get reported to your command for "obstructing a LEO".

Hell, when I was in, you could get an NJP for bouncing a check. I understand the spot the OP's friend found himself in...and they don't have to court martial you to ruin your military career.

SparrowHanger
04-03-2011, 7:22 PM
While I haven't had this happen, if asked if I had any fire arms in my car & I'd say no. Since the firearms would be unloaded (& in a locked container) they wouldn't be functional weapons. I wouldn't be lying. I never leave the locked containers or any long guns uncovered for this reason.

If the officer is Federal, it would be yes sir, they're locked & unloaded.

To say no, when asked if you have any fire arms, would be a lie even if they are locked and in a locked container. If your guns were disassembled, you could truthfully say you had none since all you had were parts or subassemblies at best.

All this talk about the police not be allowed to run your weapons serial numbers is wrong IIRC so long as it the time taken is minimal. So many fail to comprehend that the 4th only forbids "unreasonable" searches and seizures.

Shiboleth
04-03-2011, 7:58 PM
To say no, when asked if you have any fire arms, would be a lie even if they are locked and in a locked container. If your guns were disassembled, you could truthfully say you had none since all you had were parts or subassemblies at best.

All this talk about the police not be allowed to run your weapons serial numbers is wrong IIRC so long as it the time taken is minimal. So many fail to comprehend that the 4th only forbids "unreasonable" searches and seizures.

Any amount of time past that required to perform an e-check to verify loaded status, is by definition unreasonable, since the person is at that point no longer being lawfully detained via 12031 (e), yet is not free to go while the officer continues to fish. If a LEO happens to find a SN in the course of an e-check and decides to run it, fine. But he has NO lawful basis to continue the detention to do so.

jl123
04-03-2011, 8:03 PM
To say no, when asked if you have any fire arms, would be a lie even if they are locked and in a locked container. If your guns were disassembled, you could truthfully say you had none since all you had were parts or subassemblies at best.

All this talk about the police not be allowed to run your weapons serial numbers is wrong IIRC so long as it the time taken is minimal. So many fail to comprehend that the 4th only forbids "unreasonable" searches and seizures.

you seem very well spoken........that doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. See police memos re: Open Carry.

Sacramento PD:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=111324
Remember that in any scenario PC 12031(e) gives you the authority to detain the person so you can inspect the firearm per PC 12031(e). Unless you develop additional probable cause, the length of the detention will be limited to the time required to inspect the firearm.

Running the serial number would go beyond the time necessary to inspect the firearm

G1500
04-03-2011, 8:04 PM
All this talk about the police not be allowed to run your weapons serial numbers is wrong IIRC so long as it the time taken is minimal. So many fail to comprehend that the 4th only forbids "unreasonable" searches and seizures.

I would say just about any unwarranted search is unreasonable. As mentioned in this thread many times, is it unreasonable for the officer to check serial numbers on everything in your vehicle, just to ensure nothing is stolen "So long as the time taken is minimal"?

Patriot Man
04-03-2011, 8:09 PM
Do they run the SN on your watch, cel phone, camera, etc. every time they see them? No, that's because there is no reason to suspect that a crime has been committed. Why do you think that it's OK for a LEO to ASSUME that anyone with a firearm is possibly in possession of stolen property? Since, there is NO LAW in Ca requiring ALL firearms to be "registered", what would happen if the SN did not come back to anyone? What about all the perfectly legal firearms without SNs? From the little information given, this was an ILLEGAL search by the officer and was in NO WAY "PROPER".

Exactly!! What about AK type builds which as long as configured properly and built by the owner are 100% legal (assuming the person is able to legally own firearms)?? Homemade, legally configured firearms do not need or have serial numbers. This is completely bogus and your friend should absolutely file a complaint.

CitaDeL
04-03-2011, 8:09 PM
I think it interesting that no one has aid yet -

12031(e) does not give permission to check the loaded condition of any and all firearms in any and all cases, only permission to check when they might be in violation of 12031.

Let me remember. . . People v Cook? Knight? or DeLong? I can't remember anymore. But one of them dealt with this issue of public roads, guns, unincorporated areas.


Ohhhhh......good catch!

Funny, this very topic came up a (e) check related thread on OCDO just today.

sandman21
04-03-2011, 8:11 PM
To say no, when asked if you have any fire arms, would be a lie even if they are locked and in a locked container. If your guns were disassembled, you could truthfully say you had none since all you had were parts or subassemblies at best.
So the lower for my AR is not a firearm without the upper? ;)

All this talk about the police not be allowed to run your weapons serial numbers is wrong IIRC so long as it the time taken is minimal. So many fail to comprehend that the 4th only forbids "unreasonable" searches and seizures.

First, the object's incriminating character must be "immediately apparent,"....Second, the officer must have a lawful right of access to the object itself. (http://supreme.justia.com/us/496/128/)

I guess for some a gun is evidence of a crime :rolleyes: E-check is unconstitutional no lawful right to access.

Patriot Man
04-03-2011, 8:15 PM
While I haven't had this happen, if asked if I had any fire arms in my car & I'd say no. Since the firearms would be unloaded (& in a locked container) they wouldn't be functional weapons. I wouldn't be lying. I never leave the locked containers or any long guns uncovered for this reason.

If the officer is Federal, it would be yes sir, they're locked & unloaded.

Explain this part again- Federal verses state employee and differences in the approach?

jl123
04-03-2011, 8:18 PM
Explain this part again- Federal verses state employee and differences in the approach?

Lying to a fed is a federal crime.

http://library.findlaw.com/2004/May/11/147945.html
Did you know that it is a crime to tell a lie to the federal government? Even if your lie is oral and not under oath? Even if you have received no warnings of any kind? Even if you are not trying to cheat the government out of money? Even if the government is not actually misled by your falsehood? Well it is.

Oddly, they can lie to you to get you to confess.

Also, Google "lying to the FBI"

EDIT:
Looks like a former mayor of Corona just got popped for lying to the FBI:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/03/corona-mayor-natures-recipe-jeffrey-bennett-.html

jl123
04-03-2011, 8:21 PM
Funny, this very topic came up a (e) check related thread on OCDO just today.

Do you have a link by any chance?

Deadred7o7
04-03-2011, 8:41 PM
You know, that absolutist constitutional stuff gets old. As does the "any gun, anytime, anywhere" nonsense. Many here whine about how the antis can't see the reality of living in modern society but they themselves are just as guilty. They see only black and white. No wonder we're considered nuts by the masses...


^^^ The new NRA poster child :puke:

cruising7388
04-03-2011, 8:49 PM
I have considered getting stopped for something while commuting to or from the gun range.
If I get pulled over and he ask me anything, I plan on saying officer it is important you know what I am about to say is with all due respect to you and the law.
I need to reach for my wallet in my wallet is my D.L. my CCW permit and a business card from my 2nd amendment attorney , Bruce Colodny on that back of that card are several general rules if I get pulled over by police. Some of the rules are on the card and some I have just memorized; they are as follows I will not consent to any search of any kind. , . I will not speak to you and invoke my 5th amendment right to be silent. Also am I being detained or am I free to go, and last is if am going to be arrested I wish to speak to my attorney. Ė (I also have I do not consent stickers on my gun
cases)

I plan on giving him time to digest all this run my D.L. and ask again am I being detained or am I free to go?

I have two copies of this behind my D.L.
Officer,
With all due respect to you and the law,
I need to say up front several things,
Need to give you,
Driverís License.
Registration.
CCW permit. Ė Optional
Bruce Colondny - business card optional
1-800-560-8000
Must say:
I do not consent to any search of any kind.
I invoke my Fifth Amendment right to be silent.
Am I being detained or am I free to go.


Itís the best I can come up with; I will gladly accept any suggestions.

I suggest you reconsider getting stopped.

bruss01
04-03-2011, 9:15 PM
I have considered getting stopped for something while commuting to or from the gun range.
If I get pulled over and he ask me anything, I plan on saying officer it is important you know what I am about to say is with all due respect to you and the law.
I need to reach for my wallet in my wallet is my D.L. my CCW permit and a business card from my 2nd amendment attorney , Bruce Colodny on that back of that card are several general rules if I get pulled over by police. Some of the rules are on the card and some I have just memorized; they are as follows I will not consent to any search of any kind. , . I will not speak to you and invoke my 5th amendment right to be silent. Also am I being detained or am I free to go, and last is if am going to be arrested I wish to speak to my attorney. – (I also have I do not consent stickers on my gun
cases)

I plan on giving him time to digest all this run my D.L. and ask again am I being detained or am I free to go?

I have two copies of this behind my D.L.
Officer,
With all due respect to you and the law,
I need to say up front several things,
Need to give you,
Driver’s License.
Registration.
CCW permit. – Optional
Bruce Colondny - business card optional
1-800-560-8000
Must say:
I do not consent to any search of any kind.
I invoke my Fifth Amendment right to be silent.
Am I being detained or am I free to go.


It’s the best I can come up with; I will gladly accept any suggestions.

I'm sorry... but the typical officer probably runs into one person in his entire career that behaves this way... I think, from the officer's perspective, he could honestly say you were behaving oddly or exhibiting "suspicious behavior" because you're acting in a way he has never seen, or exhibiting behavior he has been INSTRUCTED IN TRAINING SESSIONS makes you a possible domestic terrorist. Now, I'm not saying that would be correct, nor that all officers would react with that perspective, but I'm saying it would probably not be so WILDLY unreasonable that it would be guaranteed to get thrown out in court. My thought is that this kind of response could be considered "suspicious behavior" that would then be used as "probable cause" for a search, on the reasoning that anyone who responds in such an evasive manner must surely be hiding something illegal, therefore a search of the vehicle to determine what is being hidden is warranted.

And of course this does not even begin to take into account the random occasional officer who (being human like the rest of us) just won't like you for some reason, has a chip on his shoulder, or is just having a bad day... who is not above finding that .38 revolver of yours while you're stuffed in the back of his patrol car and stuffing a few rounds from his pocket in there, just because you pissed him off with all your hi-falutin' constitution rhetoric. Tell me that never happens, and you will confirm my suspicions of extreme naivete on your part. Cluelessness is the opposite extreme from paranoia... neither is always wrong.

Rebuttal?

jdberger
04-03-2011, 9:27 PM
You know, that absolutist constitutional stuff gets old. As does the "any gun, anytime, anywhere" nonsense. Many here whine about how the antis can't see the reality of living in modern society but they themselves are just as guilty. They see only black and white. No wonder we're considered nuts by the masses...

Hey! I've got a friend who works for ICE. Mind if I bring him over to just look around a bit? He'll bring my other friend who's working for FBI. Couple hours, nothing too intrusive. Just a quick peek in your computer, maybe open some cabinets, drawers, glance around in your attic.

Cool?

bruss01
04-03-2011, 9:27 PM
Originally Posted by HondaMasterTech

Lying and "not telling the truth" are two different things.

You must be an elected official. :rolleyes:

Look up the definition of "privacy" ... it includes remaining silent on issues that you don't wish to discuss. You even have that codified as a right via the Miranda decision of the Supreme Court.

Think about it... do you have a door on your bathroom at home? Do you close it? Why? Are you doing something wrong, illegal, immoral in there that you need to hide? Are you building a bomb, shooting kiddie porn, or making counterfeit money?

Most of us would say "No, just enjoying a little privacy." And there's no crime in keeping your private matters private.

A right that is never exercised soon becomes a right that is forgotten and is in danger of someday becoming a crime itself. Let's not let this happen with our right to privacy.

mofugly13
04-03-2011, 9:34 PM
You know, that absolutist constitutional stuff gets old. As does the "any gun, anytime, anywhere" nonsense. Many here whine about how the antis can't see the reality of living in modern society but they themselves are just as guilty. They see only black and white. No wonder we're considered nuts by the masses...

This is straight out of Brady's playbook. Helmke spouts the "any gun, anytime, anywhere" drive in every single youtube video as well as every article he writes! It's always in there as the "gun lobby's position." I have never seen the NRA or any other gun rights group use those words, yet Helmke keeps trotting them out as if he were quoting something the NRA said. Funny to see a Calgunner useit against us...

jtmkinsd
04-03-2011, 9:36 PM
Look up the definition of "privacy" ... it includes remaining silent on issues that you don't wish to discuss. You even have that codified as a right via the Miranda decision of the Supreme Court.

Think about it... do you have a door on your bathroom at home? Do you close it? Why? Are you doing something wrong, illegal, immoral in there that you need to hide? Are you building a bomb, shooting kiddie porn, or making counterfeit money?

Most of us would say "No, just enjoying a little privacy." And there's no crime in keeping your private matters private.

Hence the whole "I'd rather not answer that question sir" portion of what I have advised from the very begining of this post...all of the hair-splitting/lie/don't tell the truth, but don't lie...is laughably absurd.

Either shut up (everyone's legal right), or be honest (everyone's moral responsibility)...and yes, you can do the first without violating the second.

santacruzstefan
04-03-2011, 9:43 PM
Would the mod who removed my post from this thread the other day PM me and tell me why, just so I know what not to say in the future? I'd appreciate it.

jl123
04-03-2011, 9:57 PM
I'm sorry... but the typical officer probably runs into one person in his entire career that behaves this way... I think, from the officer's perspective, he could honestly say you were behaving oddly or exhibiting "suspicious behavior" because you're acting in a way he has never seen, or exhibiting behavior he has been INSTRUCTED IN TRAINING SESSIONS makes you a possible domestic terrorist. Now, I'm not saying that would be correct, nor that all officers would react with that perspective, but I'm saying it would probably not be so WILDLY unreasonable that it would be guaranteed to get thrown out in court. My thought is that this kind of response could be considered "suspicious behavior" that would then be used as "probable cause" for a search, on the reasoning that anyone who responds in such an evasive manner must surely be hiding something illegal, therefore a search of the vehicle to determine what is being hidden is warranted.

And of course this does not even begin to take into account the random occasional officer who (being human like the rest of us) just won't like you for some reason, has a chip on his shoulder, or is just having a bad day... who is not above finding that .38 revolver of yours while you're stuffed in the back of his patrol car and stuffing a few rounds from his pocket in there, just because you pissed him off with all your hi-falutin' constitution rhetoric. Tell me that never happens, and you will confirm my suspicions of extreme naivete on your part. Cluelessness is the opposite extreme from paranoia... neither is always wrong.

Rebuttal?

Not only would it get bounced out of court, the victim (driver) might stand to make a nice chunk of change. Invoking your rights is def not probable cause to be detained and searched.

snobord99
04-03-2011, 10:17 PM
I think it interesting that no one has aid yet -

12031(e) does not give permission to check the loaded condition of any and all firearms in any and all cases, only permission to check when they might be in violation of 12031.

Let me remember. . . People v Cook? Knight? or DeLong? I can't remember anymore. But one of them dealt with this issue of public roads, guns, unincorporated areas.


Kern? If so, I'd certainly cite it but you have to do it knowing that it hasn't exactly been the most widely accepted opinion that's been issued on the matter.

SparrowHanger
04-03-2011, 10:26 PM
Running the serial number would go beyond the time necessary to inspect the firearm

What if it takes 20, 5, 2 minutes, or 30 seconds? What are your damages, if you prove any infringement of the 4th?

What if the officer runs the serial number while waiting back on a search for warrants? What officer 2 runs the serial number while officer 1 writes your ticket? Can you even show that you were detained a second longer to conduct the serial number check than the ticket stop would have taken?

snobord99
04-03-2011, 10:30 PM
you seem very well spoken........that doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. See police memos re: Open Carry.

Sacramento PD:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=111324

Running the serial number would go beyond the time necessary to inspect the firearm

In all fairness, (s)he isn't wrong. The 4th does only prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures; however, as you've pointed out (if I remember correctly), courts have held that detaining someone past the time it takes for an (e) check in order to check the serial number is unreasonable absent reasonable suspicion that the firearm has been involved in another crime.

snobord99
04-03-2011, 10:36 PM
What if it takes 20, 5, 2 minutes, or 30 seconds? What are your damages, if you prove any infringement of the 4th?

What if the officer runs the serial number while waiting back on a search for warrants? What officer 2 runs the serial number while officer 1 writes your ticket? Can you even show that you were detained a second longer to conduct the serial number check than the ticket stop would have taken?

I'll take this one.

Odds are, you're not getting a civil settlement as a result of such a search (most of the people here who scream "sue the police department" are just delusional...not everything is actionable as they seem to think). What you'll get is suppression of whatever they may find. Unfortunately...or fortunately...for most of us here, they won't find anything so we're left pounding sand.

If the officer is running the serial while waiting back on a search for warrants, then they're probably in the clear. That said, detaining you to run a search for warrants is itself beyond a detention for an (e) check which also cannot be done absent reasonable suspicion that there's a warrant out for you. If one officer runs the serial while the other writes a ticket, then that is also not just an (e) check; in fact, if they're writing you a ticket, you have, in essence, been arrested.

jl123
04-03-2011, 10:38 PM
In all fairness, (s)he isn't wrong. The 4th does only prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures; however, as you've pointed out (if I remember correctly), courts have held that detaining someone past the time it takes for an (e) check in order to check the serial number is unreasonable absent reasonable suspicion that the firearm has been involved in another crime.

And as Theseus stated, the only time an e check is allowed is when you are open carrying. Locked up guns in a car aren't being open carried. So technically, it sounds like you could withhold consent for them to even check. Really the best options are: 1) just to lie......unless the questions are coming from a Fed. 2) don't answer any questions.

jl123
04-03-2011, 10:46 PM
I'll take this one.

Odds are, you're not getting a civil settlement as a result of such a search (most of the people here who scream "sue the police department" are just delusional...not everything is actionable as they seem to think). What you'll get is suppression of whatever they may find. Unfortunately...or fortunately...for most of us here, they won't find anything so we're left pounding sand.

If the officer is running the serial while waiting back on a search for warrants, then they're probably in the clear. That said, detaining you to run a search for warrants is itself beyond a detention for an (e) check which also cannot be done absent reasonable suspicion that there's a warrant out for you. If one officer runs the serial while the other writes a ticket, then that is also not just an (e) check; in fact, if they're writing you a ticket, you have, in essence, been arrested.

Well, if you;re open carrying, you shouldn't be supplying the officers with your ID and if they request it, you should let them know that you are not required to supply it to them, so how are they going to run you for warrants? Driving is a different story, as they will get your ID (isn't a warrant check standard with traffic violations?). See my last post for for how to proceed in that case. IF they were to get access to the guns, they still aren't allowed to search for serials, but if some are visible, well I don't know in that case.......but they shouldn't get access to them in the first place. I would demand to get supervisors out if they persist and make a huge scene.

snobord99
04-03-2011, 10:46 PM
And as Theseus stated, the only time an e check is allowed is when you are open carrying. Locked up guns in a car aren't being open carried. So technically, it sounds like you could withhold consent for them to even check. Really the best options are: 1) just to lie......unless the questions are coming from a Fed. 2) don't answer any questions.

Actually, if the case he's talking about is the one I think he's talking about, I'd be VERY cautious relying on it. It's not exactly the most widely accepted case one could find. As I commented in response to his post, I'd cite it, but I sure as hell wouldn't rely on it.

snobord99
04-03-2011, 10:55 PM
Well, if you;re open carrying, you shouldn't be supplying the officers with your ID and if they request it, you should let them know that you are nut required to supply it to them, so how are they going to run you for warrants? Driving is a different story, as they will get your ID. See my last post for for how to proceed in that case. IF they were to get access to the guns, they still aren't allowed to search for serials, but if some are visible, well I don't know in that case.......but they shouldn't get access to them in the first place. I would demand to get supervisors out if they persist and make a huge scene.

I never said anything about whether someone is open carrying. What I stated was the general rule of law with regards to detaining you to check for warrants; I didn't (nor am I trying to) say anything about how they got your identity.

With regard to the serial, if they "see" it in the process of (e) checking the firearm, they're free to run it; they just can't make you wait while they do. If they want to go back to the car and run the serial from memory after they've released you, they're free to do so.

Refer to this (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=6129844&postcount=55) as to how I would proceed.

snobord99
04-03-2011, 10:55 PM
I suggest you reconsider getting stopped.

LOL. I was gonna say...for someone who wants to invoke his right to remain silent, he sure as hell has A LOT to say.

jl123
04-03-2011, 10:59 PM
LOL. I was gonna say...for someone who wants to invoke his right to remain silent, he sure as hell has A LOT to say.

Did cruising delete that post?

jl123
04-03-2011, 11:02 PM
I never said anything about whether someone is open carrying. What I stated was the general rule of law with regards to detaining you to check for warrants; I didn't (nor am I trying to) say anything about how they got your identity.

With regard to the serial, if they "see" it in the process of (e) checking the firearm, they're free to run it; they just can't make you wait while they do. If they want to go back to the car and run the serial from memory after they've released you, they're free to do so.

Refer to this (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=6129844&postcount=55) as to how I would proceed.

Yeah I know they can run the serials afterward.

You have to remember, common practice in CA and the correct way to do things are often not one and the same when it comes to LE policy in CA. I'm not blaming individual officers, as they are often trained poorly (see posts that pop up regularly from LE regarding FUD told to them by senior officers).

I think we fundamentally agree on the big issues, but we're starting to split hairs.

Oh and IMO and the opinion of many others here, e checks are unconstitutional.

snobord99
04-03-2011, 11:33 PM
Yeah I know they can run the serials afterward.

You have to remember, common practice in CA and the correct way to do things are often not one and the same when it comes to LE policy in CA. I'm not blaming individual officers, as they are often trained poorly (see posts that pop up regularly from LE regarding FUD told to them by senior officers).

I think we fundamentally agree on the big issues, but we're starting to split hairs.

Yea, it seems that we do agree, but splitting hairs isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's often makes a big difference in court :)

Oh and IMO and the opinion of many others here, e checks are unconstitutional.

I'm kind of on the fence on this one. Instinctively, I think "this is unconstitutional as f***." However, having read several of the opinions that have upheld it, I'd be lying if I said that I found the logic and the opinions to be completely illogical. If I *had* to choose right now, I think I'd fall on the former, but I'm certainly open to hearing arguments on both sides (though this is not a can of worms I'm trying to open).

Theseus
04-03-2011, 11:47 PM
Kern? If so, I'd certainly cite it but you have to do it knowing that it hasn't exactly been the most widely accepted opinion that's been issued on the matter.

I honestly can't remember anymore. Now that I am far and away, the information has been a little "out of sight, out of mind".

But I don't believe that Kern is it. I won't even venture into what the ruling was so as to not mislead people, but this issue has been debated before. I am almost certain it was Cook.

And as Theseus stated, the only time an e check is allowed is when you are open carrying. Locked up guns in a car aren't being open carried. So technically, it sounds like you could withhold consent for them to even check. Really the best options are: 1) just to lie......unless the questions are coming from a Fed. 2) don't answer any questions.

And to this, I never said such a thing. I did not use the words open carry in my post. Put not words that were not said. You must be careful.

As I mention above, I have now read so many cases and am out of the game enough that you can't rely on anything I say (unless maybe about 626.9), but I do know that 12031(e) only applies if in a place where 12031 applies.

Someone else can discuss what that means. Know though that, although not there in flesh, I am there in spirit. I really miss not being able to contribute in a more meaningful manner, but until my appeal is completed and won and I am vindicated, I have a woman and family that is more important to me than the cause.

snobord99
04-04-2011, 12:02 AM
I honestly can't remember anymore. Now that I am far and away, the information has been a little "out of sight, out of mind".

But I don't believe that Kern is it. I won't even venture into what the ruling was so as to not mislead people, but this issue has been debated before. I am almost certain it was Cook.

I haven't looked that hard, but I'm still thinking it's Kern. There aren't that many 12031(e) opinions and Kern's the only one that seems to indicate what you're saying. Does this refresh your recollection?

OVERVIEW: After defendant and his friend were seen placing a rifle and an attache case in the trunk of their car, they were pulled over to make a check on the weapon and to check the vehicle to see if it was stolen. The officer opened the trunk, where he found the rifle on top of the attache case. The officer looked for the clip to the rifle in the attache case, where he found methamphetamine. A piece of luggage was opened and found to contain a sawed-off rifle. Defendant was charged with possession of a sawed-off shotgun and possession of methamphetamine. The trial court dismissed the information against defendant, holding that a request to inspect the firearm was a prerequisite to a search under Cal. Penal Code � 12031. The state challenged the decision. The reviewing court affirmed, holding that the officer made no request to inspect the firearm. Hence, � 12031(e) did not justify an arrest and the search was not incident to a lawful arrest. In the absence of a request to inspect, probable cause to search, or any exigent circumstances, the opening of the car trunk was unlawful. Therefore, the trial court acted correctly when it dismissed the information.

I'm just wondering because I've not even found a Cook with regard to 12031(e) but, as I said, I've not looked that hard. I'd certainly like to read the case that says what you say it says.

jl123
04-04-2011, 12:10 AM
I honestly can't remember anymore. Now that I am far and away, the information has been a little "out of sight, out of mind".

But I don't believe that Kern is it. I won't even venture into what the ruling was so as to not mislead people, but this issue has been debated before. I am almost certain it was Cook.



And to this, I never said such a thing. I did not use the words open carry in my post. Put not words that were not said. You must be careful.

As I mention above, I have now read so many cases and am out of the game enough that you can't rely on anything I say (unless maybe about 626.9), but I do know that 12031(e) only applies if in a place where 12031 applies.

Someone else can discuss what that means. Know though that, although not there in flesh, I am there in spirit. I really miss not being able to contribute in a more meaningful manner, but until my appeal is completed and won and I am vindicated, I have a woman and family that is more important to me than the cause.

Sorry man. I was careless. I tried to interpret what you said without rereading it.

terdog
04-04-2011, 6:12 AM
I carry a business card from a lawyer that reads,

"PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I do not waive any of my legal or Constitutional rights. I unequivocally invoke my right to silence. I object to being detained, questioned, or searched. I object to my person, automobile, or my residence being searched. I unequivocally invoke my right to to an attorney. I demand that my attorney, XYZ be immediately notified of my detention and that I be allowed to call him."

RGERBER
04-04-2011, 6:22 AM
I'm sorry... but the typical officer probably runs into one person in his entire career that behaves this way... I think, from the officer's perspective, he could honestly say you were behaving oddly or exhibiting "suspicious behavior" because you're acting in a way he has never seen, or exhibiting behavior he has been INSTRUCTED IN TRAINING SESSIONS makes you a possible domestic terrorist. Now, I'm not saying that would be correct, nor that all officers would react with that perspective, but I'm saying it would probably not be so WILDLY unreasonable that it would be guaranteed to get thrown out in court. My thought is that this kind of response could be considered "suspicious behavior" that would then be used as "probable cause" for a search, on the reasoning that anyone who responds in such an evasive manner must surely be hiding something illegal, therefore a search of the vehicle to determine what is being hidden is warranted.

And of course this does not even begin to take into account the random occasional officer who (being human like the rest of us) just won't like you for some reason, has a chip on his shoulder, or is just having a bad day... who is not above finding that .38 revolver of yours while you're stuffed in the back of his patrol car and stuffing a few rounds from his pocket in there, just because you pissed him off with all your hi-falutin' constitution rhetoric. Tell me that never happens, and you will confirm my suspicions of extreme naivete on your part. Cluelessness is the opposite extreme from paranoia... neither is always wrong.

Rebuttal?

And yet this is exactly the way they tell you to do it in CCW class and on donít talk to police videos, and the Cal Gun sticker that say donít search, and the lawyer stickers that say donít search.
I have legal AR-15 / Ak-47 / high cap mags all legal if you know the law. If he asks do I have a gun I have no problem with my CCW weapon, but I do not want him to look at all the rest unless he knows the law.
A White 50 yr. old terrorist that as a CCW and live in America his whole life, I donít think so, if he acts on that he is one bad cop, thatís why they check the ID.
Remember this is going to or from the gun range when he ask if I have any more guns in the truck.

RGERBER
04-04-2011, 6:24 AM
I carry a business card from a lawyer that reads,

"PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I do not waive any of my legal or Constitutional rights. I unequivocally invoke my right to silence. I object to being detained, questioned, or searched. I object to my person, automobile, or my residence being searched. I unequivocally invoke my right to to an attorney. I demand that my attorney, XYZ be immediately notified of my detention and that I be allowed to call him."

I like that one -

RGERBER
04-04-2011, 6:27 AM
I never said anything about whether someone is open carrying. What I stated was the general rule of law with regards to detaining you to check for warrants; I didn't (nor am I trying to) say anything about how they got your identity.

With regard to the serial, if they "see" it in the process of (e) checking the firearm, they're free to run it; they just can't make you wait while they do. If they want to go back to the car and run the serial from memory after they've released you, they're free to do so.

Refer to this (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=6129844&postcount=55) as to how I would proceed.

That’s great if he says fine, but what if he says again sir do you have any weapons or anything illegal on you or in the car. And expects an answer

I think you guys are misunderstanding what I am trying to say. – all seminars classes say do not let them search or say anything, if the officer see’s you are prepared and have had CCW classes he will understand you are acting as directed by an attorney. – At least that is want I would think.
I would exchange pleasantries and ask to keep this for the reason I was stopped but you have to verbalize your rights or you consent to the search, every video I have watch tells me to do what I plan on doing.

RGERBER
04-04-2011, 6:32 AM
That’s great if he says fine, but what if he says again sir do you have any weapons or anything illegal on you or in the car. And expects an answer

I think you guys are misunderstanding what I am trying to say. – all seminars classes say do not let them search or say anything, if the officer see’s you are prepared and have had CCW classes he will understand you are acting as directed by an attorney. – At least that is want I would think.
I would exchange pleasantries and ask to keep this for the reason I was stopped but you have to verbalize your rights or you consent to the search, every video I have watch tells me to do what I plan on doing.

JeepFreak
04-04-2011, 7:17 AM
I'm sorry... but the typical officer probably runs into one person in his entire career that behaves this way... I think, from the officer's perspective, he could honestly say you were behaving oddly or exhibiting "suspicious behavior" because you're acting in a way he has never seen, or exhibiting behavior he has been INSTRUCTED IN TRAINING SESSIONS makes you a possible domestic terrorist. Now, I'm not saying that would be correct, nor that all officers would react with that perspective, but I'm saying it would probably not be so WILDLY unreasonable that it would be guaranteed to get thrown out in court. My thought is that this kind of response could be considered "suspicious behavior" that would then be used as "probable cause" for a search, on the reasoning that anyone who responds in such an evasive manner must surely be hiding something illegal, therefore a search of the vehicle to determine what is being hidden is warranted.


I gotta agree here. It might not be right, and it might not be held up in (the highest) court... but I could see some cops using it!
Billy

jl123
04-04-2011, 7:19 AM
Thatís great if he says fine, but what if he says again sir do you have any weapons or anything illegal on you or in the car. And expects an answer

I think you guys are misunderstanding what I am trying to say. Ė all seminars classes say do not let them search or say anything, if the officer seeís you are prepared and have had CCW classes he will understand you are acting as directed by an attorney. Ė At least that is want I would think.
I would exchange pleasantries and ask to keep this for the reason I was stopped but you have to verbalize your rights or you consent to the search, every video I have watch tells me to do what I plan on doing.

Am I free to go or am I being detained?

snobord99
04-04-2011, 8:18 AM
That’s great if he says fine, but what if he says again sir do you have any weapons or anything illegal on you or in the car. And expects an answer

I think you guys are misunderstanding what I am trying to say. – all seminars classes say do not let them search or say anything, if the officer see’s you are prepared and have had CCW classes he will understand you are acting as directed by an attorney. – At least that is want I would think.
I would exchange pleasantries and ask to keep this for the reason I was stopped but you have to verbalize your rights or you consent to the search, every video I have watch tells me to do what I plan on doing.

If necessary, instead of letting them know I'm acting as directed by an attorney, I think it's more helpful for me to let them know they're talking to one ;)

HondaMasterTech
04-04-2011, 2:05 PM
Hence the whole "I'd rather not answer that question sir" portion of what I have advised from the very begining of this post...all of the hair-splitting/lie/don't tell the truth, but don't lie...is laughably absurd.

Either shut up (everyone's legal right), or be honest (everyone's moral responsibility)...and yes, you can do the first without violating the second.

When I said, "Lying and 'not telling the truth' are two different things", I suppose I should have elaborated.

Don't lie. It'll lead to problems. Instead, you should avoid answering the question because it's none of the officers business and, "not tell the truth".

Good?

SparrowHanger
04-04-2011, 2:09 PM
The invocation of constitutional rights cannot, as a matter of law, give rise to probable cause or reasonable suspicicion. Nevertheless, if you invoke those rights be prepared for the officer to call in for instructions as to how to proceed and to be joined by a supervisor at a minimum. If any grounds can be found to conduct a thorough search of you and your vehicle they will look for them and I suspect that will happen. If evidence of a crime is found, be prepared to be placed under arrest. At best, the DA will decline to prosecute. If prosecuted, the judge may quash the evidence and may not. A simple solution is to not carry firearms or, as I suggested, break them down into parts in which case, ask your attorney, they are no longer firearms but firearm parts.

AS for letting the officer know you are an attorney, IMO you are guaranteeing that everything possible will be done by the officer to ensure that your rights are preserved, regardless of how much time that requires.

RGERBER
04-04-2011, 2:23 PM
You know what makes this all a bunch of B.S. is that if the Law Enforcement knew and understood the complicated Gun laws In Kalifornia I would have absolutely nothing the worry about.

But when I go to the range and that is on the 2nd Sunday of every month my Son and Daughter normally go with me. the truck in back is full with all legal AK-47 AR-15’s and high cap mags for my Glocks some rebuilds some very old. But still function great also I take my 4th gen. Glock so that may raise questions also. All the AK and AR mags are 10-20 and 10-30 and I have some spinner targets in the Ext. cab that are in plain sight. – So there is really no doubt they are going to ask if I have any guns on me.

Like I said the Kahr P-9 I carry is no issue.

Justintoxicated
04-04-2011, 2:28 PM
What happens if you forgot the lock to your gun case, and then can't remember the combo to the locks on your gun cases that are within your case?

Is it not true that if an officer see a gun case, they can search it?

G1500
04-04-2011, 2:48 PM
A simple solution is to not carry firearms or, as I suggested, break them down into parts in which case, ask your attorney, they are no longer firearms but firearm parts.




Lol, are you for real?

RGERBER
04-04-2011, 2:50 PM
What happens if you forgot the lock to your gun case, and then can't remember the combo to the locks on your gun cases that are within your case?

Is it not true that if an officer see a gun case, they can search it?

That's not believable, also the mags and long guns are not locked 

Justintoxicated
04-04-2011, 2:57 PM
That's not believable, also the mags and long guns are not locked 

Long guns should be locked. Unless your absolutely sure to never cross a school zone in your path to the range. I have to cross one or two, it's the only way to get to the freeway near me.

Everything I bring is locked. Ammo mags etc. Hell I lock my hand guns and ammo in a tool box, and then lock the individual soft cases inside the tool box. So many combos to remember.... I might just not remember one if I'm nervous !?!

spits55
04-04-2011, 3:00 PM
If Leo ran the #'s what would happen if you get pulled over with a "complete" 80% AR? they don't have S#'s??

RGERBER
04-04-2011, 3:03 PM
I don't cross a school zone but good call, I never thought of that,( see that's the problem.) also all my serial numbers are fine.

G1500
04-04-2011, 3:06 PM
I don't cross a school zone but good call, I never thought of that,( see that's the problem.) also all my serial numbers are fine.

Your serial numbers may be fine, but he is talking about firearms that never had serial numbers to begin with.

Cato
04-04-2011, 3:14 PM
His first mistake was answering the officer's question. It is not a crime to simply state: "I'd rather not answer that sir".

Arguing with LE on the side of the road is a no-win situation. Simply refuse to answer questions, state you do not consent to any searches, and get name and badge number. Afterwards, you can file a complaint. That complaint stays on his/her record forever...the more complaints, the easier it is for the next guy/gal to have some kind of action taken.

You mean if you're armed (even with everything locked and legal), you don't have to inform the LEO?

I guess that makes sense, last time I was pulled over the officer (Arcadia PD) just asked me if I had "anything I'm not supposed to." I said (like a dumbnut), no, wanna search me? The LEO declined.

jtmkinsd
04-04-2011, 3:17 PM
When I said, "Lying and 'not telling the truth' are two different things", I suppose I should have elaborated.

Don't lie. It'll lead to problems. Instead, you should avoid answering the question because it's none of the officers business and, "not tell the truth".

Good?

LOL...much better :D

The way you first phrased it the first thing that popped in my mind was Bill Clinton. :laugh:

snobord99
04-04-2011, 3:25 PM
AS for letting the officer know you are an attorney, IMO you are guaranteeing that everything possible will be done by the officer to ensure that your rights are preserved, regardless of how much time that requires.

LOL. Actually, it lets them know that I know exactly how long he's allowed to detain me. It also lets them know that I'm neither afraid of court or a complaint (whether in court or with the department). So you're right, it guarantees that they will do everything possible to ensure that my rights are preserved and, in most instances, "everything possible" would include letting me go as soon as they're done with whatever legal cause they have to detain me. Of course this is all in theory. I've not had an unpleasant police encounter in about 10 years and have been an attorney for far less time than that.

MasterYong
04-04-2011, 3:28 PM
You know, that absolutist constitutional stuff gets old. As does the "any gun, anytime, anywhere" nonsense. Many here whine about how the antis can't see the reality of living in modern society but they themselves are just as guilty. They see only black and white. No wonder we're considered nuts by the masses...

Got it. You're willing to give up your rights just because a very, very, VERY small percentage o the population may have been a victim of theft. You're also willing to give up what little privacy you have left.

That's nice.

What's also nice is that sheep with similar attitudes don't get to make decisions for us...

...oh wait.

Nick Justice
04-04-2011, 3:30 PM
Tustin, CA PD once pulled me over for a broken rear license plate light bulb on my truck.

My NRA sticker was on the rear window.

He asked me for all the usual info (lic., reg., insur.), and then asked me if I had "any hand grenades or machine guns". I was truly puzzled, gave him a truly puzzled look, and said "No". He ran my info in the car as I waited a few minutes. He came back, requested that I repair the light, and sent me on my way.

As I left, I noticed that there were THREE MORE units behind him. Based upon what I know about patrol staffing, they were most likely all the officers on patrol in the city for the night.

I just shook my head and left.

N6ATF
04-04-2011, 3:48 PM
You know what makes this all a bunch of B.S. is that if the Law Enforcement knew and understood the complicated Gun laws In Kalifornia I would have absolutely nothing the worry about.

All they have to know and understand is the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land (all contrary laws be damned straight to hell), the thing they swore an oath to support and defend. All the complicated gun laws in CA intrinsically and intentionally were written to violate it.

Got it. You're willing to give up your rights just because a very, very, VERY small percentage o the population may have been a victim of theft. You're also willing to give up what little privacy you have left.

That's nice.

What's also nice is that sheep with similar attitudes don't get to make decisions for us...

...oh wait.

It's called the "thieves' veto", and the Fed courts reject it.

furyous68
04-04-2011, 4:02 PM
If the Leo agencies made a habit of returning stolen firearms I might (probably not, but might) think this is a valid argument. I have never heard of a LEO agency calling and saying we have found your stolen firearm. I've seen plenty of arrests for stolen firearms but never a return... Again not to say it doesn't happen just never hear of it happening.


I can actually say I have. My father-in-law got his ruger 10/22 back that way. Stolen from their house when my wife was 14.... 10 years later a crack house was raided & guess what was found?! Other than not being cleaned in the 10 years it was missing & a small corner cracked off the front sight blade... it's still in good shape! It's mine now :D

Ford8N
04-04-2011, 4:16 PM
All they have to know and understand is the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land (all contrary laws be damned straight to hell), the thing they swore an oath to support and defend. All the complicated gun laws in CA intrinsically and intentionally were written to violate it.



You sir, have it exactly right.


....and we pay these rulers and their minions to violate our rights.

furyous68
04-04-2011, 4:21 PM
I think it interesting that no one has aid yet -

12031(e) does not give permission to check the loaded condition of any and all firearms in any and all cases, only permission to check when they might be in violation of 12031.

Let me remember. . . People v Cook? Knight? or DeLong? I can't remember anymore. But one of them dealt with this issue of public roads, guns, unincorporated areas.


Might want to re-read that section of the law:

(e) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for
the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized
to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a
vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an
incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.
Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to
this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of
this section.

Pretty straight forward as to when and where an officer can e-check a gun... and what happens if we refuse.

Now, I haven't read the entire thing and there may be a section that does restrict them, but Theseus quoted out of context.

Not trying to defend the law, I personally agree with the rest of you that LEO should pound sand when it comes to this... but until the law is changed, what can you do?

Justintoxicated
04-04-2011, 4:35 PM
Maybe just respond to them with quotes from anchorman?

-- 'DO YOU HAVE ANY WEAPONS'?

"Do you know who I am?"
" I don't know how to put this, but I'm kind of a big deal."
"Um, I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books, and my apartment smells of rich mahogany."

Or Duke Nukem.

-- 'DO YOU HAVE ANY WEAPONS'?

"Balls of Steel"
"Balls of Steel"
"Balls of Steel"

furyous68
04-04-2011, 4:41 PM
Maybe just respond to them with quotes from anchorman?

"Do you know who I am?"
" I don't know how to put this, but I'm kind of a big deal."
"Um, I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books, and my apartment smells of rich mahogany."

Or Duke Nukem.

"Balls of Steel"
"Balls of Steel"
"Balls of Steel"

^^ This could work!.... would love to see it on YouTube! LOL

JeepFreak
04-04-2011, 5:32 PM
The invocation of constitutional rights cannot, as a matter of law, give rise to probable cause or reasonable suspicicion.

What if I used my fingers to write, "I invoke my 4th and 5th amendment rights! Now go away!" on a tattered white sheet with a dark red liquid that may or may not be blood and as soon as the cop pulls me over, I jump out of my car and cover it with the sheet?

My point is, I think how the invocation of those rights is conveyed can/will be considered.

I am just trying to think logically though, I don't have any fancy schoolin' on the matter :)
Billy

HondaMasterTech
04-04-2011, 5:42 PM
Acting nervous is not probably cause.

Theseus
04-04-2011, 6:00 PM
Might want to re-read that section of the law:

(e) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for
the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized
to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a
vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an
incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.
Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to
this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of
this section.

Pretty straight forward as to when and where an officer can e-check a gun... and what happens if we refuse.

Now, I haven't read the entire thing and there may be a section that does restrict them, but Theseus quoted out of context.

Not trying to defend the law, I personally agree with the rest of you that LEO should pound sand when it comes to this... but until the law is changed, what can you do?

No. Read the underlined carefully. If 12031 doesn't apply, then 12031(e) does not apply.

Where does 12031 apply? In any public place or on public streets of incorporated cities; prohibited areas of unincorporated territory.

Snoboard99 - the case I am talking about had to do with a man with a .22 in his truck. He was on the side of the road in an unincorporated area. The police searched him and charged him with a violation of 12031,12025, and, I believe, some drug possession charge. IIRC the judge ruled that, because the police didn't prove that he was in an incorporated city, or in a prohibited place in unincorporated territory, the authority from 12031(e) to search didn't apply. I will took in my spare time, but am almost certain it is either People v. Cook or People v Knight.

snobord99
04-04-2011, 6:30 PM
Snoboard99 - the case I am talking about had to do with a man with a .22 in his truck. He was on the side of the road in an unincorporated area. The police searched him and charged him with a violation of 12031,12025, and, I believe, some drug possession charge. IIRC the judge ruled that, because the police didn't prove that he was in an incorporated city, or in a prohibited place in unincorporated territory, the authority from 12031(e) to search didn't apply. I will took in my spare time, but am almost certain it is either People v. Cook or People v Knight.

Knight. In a drug case, defendant was entitled to suppression of the evidence because his arrest under Pen C ß 12031(a)(1) for carrying a loaded firearm in a public place was not a lawful warrantless arrest under Pen C ß 836(a)(3) in the absence of proof that defendant was in an incorporated city or a prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.

We're talking about completely different things then. I was working under the assumption that we're talking about a place where (e) would be applicable. Under those circumstances, (e) isn't even applicable (they actually don't even mention (e) in the opinion). What happened is they arrested the defendant for 12031(a)(1) and searched them and found meth. Court said that the meth was suppressable because the search was the result of the arrest for (a)(1) and since he was in an unincorporated part of the county, he couldn't have been violating (a)(1) so the arrest was illegal thus the meth suppressable.

flyingcaveman
04-04-2011, 6:50 PM
Tustin, CA PD once pulled me over for a broken rear license plate light bulb on my truck.

My NRA sticker was on the rear window.

He asked me for all the usual info (lic., reg., insur.), and then asked me if I had "any hand grenades or machine guns". I was truly puzzled, gave him a truly puzzled look, and said "No". ...

I just shook my head and left.

I think this is the answer. If a cop asks if I have any weapons, I think I would ask him if he could re-phrase the question in such a way that I can answer truthfuly without him or myself violating my rights. If the cop would have just asked if I had any 'illegal' weapons in the first place, I could answer honestly without seeming evasive or suspicious.

Having a box of shells in plain sight is probable cause for a gun, like having a bottle of milk is probable cause for having a cow.

Theseus
04-04-2011, 6:58 PM
Knight. In a drug case, defendant was entitled to suppression of the evidence because his arrest under Pen C ß 12031(a)(1) for carrying a loaded firearm in a public place was not a lawful warrantless arrest under Pen C ß 836(a)(3) in the absence of proof that defendant was in an incorporated city or a prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.

We're talking about completely different things then. I was working under the assumption that we're talking about a place where (e) would be applicable. Under those circumstances, (e) isn't even applicable (they actually don't even mention (e) in the opinion). What happened is they arrested the defendant for 12031(a)(1) and searched them and found meth. Court said that the meth was suppressable because the search was the result of the arrest for (a)(1) and since he was in an unincorporated part of the county, he couldn't have been violating (a)(1) so the arrest was illegal thus the meth suppressable.

Oh, I see. I was talking about where it isn't applicable. I think it is far more important to focus on where it isn't and press the police on it than to discuss how to handle it if you are.

gatesbox
04-04-2011, 7:26 PM
Wow, this is one dead puppy of a thread....even before you are marandized for probable cause you have the right to remain SILENT....period....you don't have a right to buy a vowel, or ask for the word in the form of a sentence, or the language of origin, tense or etymology. You have the right to not say a damn thing.........

+1,000,000 for say nothing and hand over your drivers license, registration and proof of insurance......

If you need any further convincing please watch the videos listed time and time again....

Don't talk to cops!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik&feature=youtube_gdata_player
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

gatesbox
04-04-2011, 7:32 PM
Tustin, CA PD once pulled me over......

As I left, I noticed that there were THREE MORE units behind him. Based upon what I know about patrol staffing, they were most likely all the officers on patrol in the city for the night.

I just shook my head and left.


Tustin, CA is one of if not the most heavily policed towns in CA per capita, I guarantee they had more than three patrol cars on duty at any given time including Christmas Eve........ I am sure it is probably fairly standard to have at least two cars at a stop....it sounds like this officer was pretty smart to ask for only unlawful weapons, did you a favor.

furyous68
04-05-2011, 7:41 AM
No. Read the underlined carefully. If 12031 doesn't apply, then 12031(e) does not apply.

Where does 12031 apply? In any public place or on public streets of incorporated cities; prohibited areas of unincorporated territory.


Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but It also says any weapon on your person or in your vehicle is subject to check, and failure to comply can lead to arrest.

So, either you lie (which I am not willing to do due to my own personal reasons), or you say "yes officer, there are firearms in the car". The latter would then lead to a legal inspection of the firearms.

oaklander
04-05-2011, 8:12 AM
I would like to see us reach out more to the ACLU on these issues. We have great points of commonality on 4th and 5th Amendment issues. . .

http://www.aclusonoma.org/yourRights.html

Theseus
04-05-2011, 8:24 AM
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but It also says any weapon on your person or in your vehicle is subject to check, and failure to comply can lead to arrest.

So, either you lie (which I am not willing to do due to my own personal reasons), or you say "yes officer, there are firearms in the car". The latter would then lead to a legal inspection of the firearms.

You are reading one sentence and disregarding the other. You need to understand the meaning when they are used together.

For example, you may be driving on a public road in unincorporated territory where discharge is not prohibited. The officer has no authority to demand inspection of your weapons to determine if they are loaded.

I am not going to get into the whole constitutional argument about a law requiring you to surrender your 5A rights or face arrest.

furyous68
04-05-2011, 8:48 AM
O.K... see? I wasn't understanding your point! LOL

I see what you're saying now. But... for those of us that don't live or travel through those areas very often (city dwellers), if we get pulled over we're pretty much screwed one way or the other... not taking into consideration the constitutional aspect of it since we live in California & the US Constitution has no bearing whatsoever here :rolleyes:

Charlie50
04-05-2011, 8:53 AM
If the Leo agencies made a habit of returning stolen firearms I might (probably not, but might) think this is a valid argument. I have never heard of a LEO agency calling and saying we have found your stolen firearm. I've seen plenty of arrests for stolen firearms but never a return... Again not to say it doesn't happen just never hear of it happening.

I had one returned to me 3 years after it was stolen. South Lake Tahoe Police Department. It does happen.

Regarding post: I only travel with a firearm in a locked container, unloaded. Solves all kinds of problems. Never been asked if I had a weapon when stopped and I have been stopped a number of times over my many years. If asked if I had a weapon I would honestly answer "no" because I don't have one readilly available, I might have one locked up (maybe in my trunk, maybe at home, maybe at my place of work, maybe in a safe etc ...), but not one that is readilly accessible and not a danger to the officer. Maybe this is "clintonion" but I don't commit crimes and there will be no reasonable cause or probable cause for them to legally open any locked device I have.

titankeith
04-05-2011, 9:18 AM
So is the consensus to say "I prefer not to answer", or answer in a roundabout way like "There is nothing illegal in this car", or flat out lie and say no?

"I have nothing illegal in this car" is perfect. When pressed , you tell them they have no probable cause and you do not consent to a search....if they press, get name of officer, and ask for his supervisor...never consent, but do not resist either....say nothing else.

El Toro
04-05-2011, 4:07 PM
Wow, this is one dead puppy of a thread....even before you are marandized for probable cause you have the right to remain SILENT....period....you don't have a right to buy a vowel, or ask for the word in the form of a sentence, or the language of origin, tense or etymology. You have the right to not say a damn thing.........

+1,000,000 for say nothing and hand over your drivers license, registration and proof of insurance......

If you need any further convincing please watch the videos listed time and time again....

Don't talk to cops!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik&feature=youtube_gdata_player
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE&feature=youtube_gdata_player


Great video everyone here should watch. That Law School Prof was awesome. I especially was freaked by Part II where the cop tells how they will fish and fish and fish until they get you to self-incriminate.

This video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJrQBwJpqk&feature=related)is perfect. Stay calm. Be Polite. Follow the simple rules and if pressed to search the vehicle, explain that you do not consent and ask if you are free to leave.

hasserl
04-06-2011, 2:08 PM
LEO: Do you have any weapons in the car?
Driver: What?
LEO: I said, do you have any weapons in the car?
Driver: Why would you ask me that?
LEO: Because xyz
Driver: What does that have do to with the reason you pulled me over. How about we stick to that?
LEO: Why don't you answer the question?
Driver: I don't answer questions like that. Now, am I being detained or am I free to go?
LEO: Please get out of the vehicle.
Driver: Yes Sir. (get out of the vehicle and lock the doors as you exit, put the keys in your pocket).
LEO: Why did you lock the doors?
Driver: I always lock the doors when I get out.
LEO: Give me the keys.
Driver: I'm sorry officer, but I do not consent to searches. Am I being detained, or am I free to go?
LEO: (lot's of threats about how he is going to search the car and how he won't be responsible for any damage that occurs, yadda yadda yadda.)
Driver: I'm sorry Sir, but I do not consent to searches. Am I free to go now?

And on it goes. You don't lie to the officer. You don't answer his questions. You do not give consent to searches. You do not physically try to stop him. You do repeatedly ask him if you are free to go, repeatedly. Make it abundantly clear that you want to know if you are being detained, and if so for what, and for what reason. If not, are you free to go? Put him in the position of having to decide to detain you, he has to have good reason for this. Your refusal to answer his question, or grant permission for him to search your car is not good reason. If he has no good reason to detain you he must let you go. That is the law. Period.

Glock22Fan
04-06-2011, 2:47 PM
In a recent Alaska Troopers, they arrested and handcuffed a guy for having a stolen gun in his car. He maintained he bought the gun new many years ago. After a considerable time, they realized that the name on his driving license was the same as the name on the theft report: he had reported it stolen and had never reported that it had turned up again. He seemed to have forgotten the incident until they reminded him. Then they unarrested him and let him go.

El Toro
04-06-2011, 3:12 PM
I saw that episode too. Of course with the potential for human error being what it is, can you imagine the DOJ data accuracy? You could end up in jail because someone transcribed a digit in the serial number.

RGERBER
04-06-2011, 3:25 PM
LEO: Do you have any weapons in the car?
Driver: What?
LEO: I said, do you have any weapons in the car?
Driver: Why would you ask me that?
LEO: Because xyz
Driver: What does that have do to with the reason you pulled me over. How about we stick to that?
LEO: Why don't you answer the question?
Driver: I don't answer questions like that. Now, am I being detained or am I free to go?
LEO: Please get out of the vehicle.
Driver: Yes Sir. (get out of the vehicle and lock the doors as you exit, put the keys in your pocket).
LEO: Why did you lock the doors?
Driver: I always lock the doors when I get out.
LEO: Give me the keys.
Driver: I'm sorry officer, but I do not consent to searches. Am I being detained, or am I free to go?
LEO: (lot's of threats about how he is going to search the car and how he won't be responsible for any damage that occurs, yadda yadda yadda.)
Driver: I'm sorry Sir, but I do not consent to searches. Am I free to go now?

And on it goes. You don't lie to the officer. You don't answer his questions. You do not give consent to searches. You do not physically try to stop him. You do repeatedly ask him if you are free to go, repeatedly. Make it abundantly clear that you want to know if you are being detained, and if so for what, and for what reason. If not, are you free to go? Put him in the position of having to decide to detain you, he has to have good reason for this. Your refusal to answer his question, or grant permission for him to search your car is not good reason. If he has no good reason to detain you he must let you go. That is the law. Period.

You sure are acting suspicious, is there something you donít want me to see, you know we can do this the hard way or the easy way, if you have nothing to hide just let me look in the car. Ok then you are going to have to wait until sgt. --- gets here. Or I can impound the car ?

paul0660
04-06-2011, 3:31 PM
Or I can impound the car ?

Doesn't an arrest have to take place first?

hasserl
04-06-2011, 4:07 PM
You sure are acting suspicious, is there something you donít want me to see, you know we can do this the hard way or the easy way, if you have nothing to hide just let me look in the car. Ok then you are going to have to wait until sgt. --- gets here. Or I can impound the car ?

Yadda, Yadda, Yadda. Scare tactics. He's going to do what he's going to do. You can't stop him, but you don't have to agree to it either. Maintain your position. If he has no probable cause then he has no probable cause. You not agreeing or not consenting does not constitute probable cause. You not consenting to a search or answering his questions does not constitute suspicious behavior.

What's the hard way and what's the easy way? Easy way is to give in and let him have his way with you? If the hard way means he's going to search the car no matter what, even if he has to damage it in order to do it, then so be it. In the end he will have to answer for it, he will have to explain to a judge why he did it, and it's not going to look good; and the city/county/state will pay for the damage. And it will be a permanent mark on his record.

SickofSoCal
04-06-2011, 4:15 PM
Running the serial number was proper in that situation. Remember LEO is not only checking for registration, but for stolen status too. In fact its usually run for that anyways. If the handgun is registered to someone else...back in my day...it was so what? Long as its not stolen.

Never know what might be stolen.........we should check everything, all the time, everywhere, no matter what.

Can I check your cat and dog? They might be stolen property. Just doing things by the book, you know, so please, don't give me any grief.

Ford8N
04-06-2011, 4:35 PM
Yadda, Yadda, Yadda. Scare tactics. He's going to do what he's going to do. You can't stop him, but you don't have to agree to it either. Maintain your position. If he has no probable cause then he has no probable cause. You not agreeing or not consenting does not constitute probable cause. You not consenting to a search or answering his questions does not constitute suspicious behavior.

What's the hard way and what's the easy way? Easy way is to give in and let him have his way with you? If the hard way means he's going to search the car no matter what, even if he has to damage it in order to do it, then so be it. In the end he will have to answer for it, he will have to explain to a judge why he did it, and it's not going to look good; and the city/county/state will pay for the damage. And it will be a permanent mark on his record.

Haha, nothing will happen to the officer. He will still get his pay check and that nice public pension.

El Toro
04-06-2011, 4:49 PM
But the point is nothing will happen to you either (at least not in the long run). Your 4thA. rights were violated and you may lose some possessions which LE thinks is contraband but that will be the end of it.

hasserl
04-06-2011, 5:17 PM
You will have your guns returned to you, IF they are taken. You will be compensated for damages. And it will be on his permanent record. That does effect his career if/when he is considered for promotions, it effects things if/when he does the same thing to someone else. It effect things if he wants to take a nice cushy job in some other town, and they take a dim view of officers that violate citizen's constitutional and civil rights.

N6ATF
04-06-2011, 5:19 PM
You will have your guns returned to you, IF they are taken. You will be compensated for damages. And it will be on his permanent record. That does effect his career if/when he is considered for promotions, it effects things if/when he does the same thing to someone else. It effect things if he wants to take a nice cushy job in some other town, and they take a dim view of officers that violate citizen's constitutional and civil rights.

He'd likely be hired as Chief, then. There's always an opening for a civil rights-violating Chief.

snobord99
04-06-2011, 5:34 PM
You will have your guns returned to you, IF they are taken. You will be compensated for damages. And it will be on his permanent record. That does effect his career if/when he is considered for promotions, it effects things if/when he does the same thing to someone else. It effect things if he wants to take a nice cushy job in some other town, and they take a dim view of officers that violate citizen's constitutional and civil rights.

LOL. You seem to think this is somehow an easy process. How wrong you are.

At the end of the day, what Ford8N said will happen, is probably going to happen. Namely, "nothing will happen to the officer. He will still get his pay check and that nice public pension."

Sure, you'll be compensated for damages and it will be a mark on his permanent record...IF you can prove what you say happened is in fact what happened. If it's just your word vs. cop's word, 99% of the time, you lose.

Sniper3142
04-06-2011, 6:00 PM
You will have your guns returned to you, IF they are taken. You will be compensated for damages. And it will be on his permanent record. That does effect his career if/when he is considered for promotions, it effects things if/when he does the same thing to someone else. It effect things if he wants to take a nice cushy job in some other town, and they take a dim view of officers that violate citizen's constitutional and civil rights.


The Citizen is out TIME and a lot of MONEY among other things.

If the weapons are returned, it is only after a rather long period of time during which the citizen has been deprived of his legally owned property. And then he/she has to pay money to get his own property back. And the police don't make that process easy. You'll often have to contact several people (DA, Judge, The involved cops) and basically beg them to release your property.

The cop usually isn't punished at all for his stomping on the rights of a citizen. Heck, he might even get a medal for taking "one more gun off the street".

TRICKSTER
04-06-2011, 6:18 PM
You sure are acting suspicious, is there something you donít want me to see, you know we can do this the hard way or the easy way, if you have nothing to hide just let me look in the car. Ok then you are going to have to wait until sgt. --- gets here. Or I can impound the car ?

:fud:

What is the Vehicle Code impound authority for this scenario ?
What is the probable cause to detain someone until a Sgt. arrives?

magsnubby
04-06-2011, 8:07 PM
You know, that absolutist constitutional stuff gets old. As does the "any gun, anytime, anywhere" nonsense. Many here whine about how the antis can't see the reality of living in modern society but they themselves are just as guilty. They see only black and white. No wonder we're considered nuts by the masses...

I agree. I think we should just abolish the constitution so the police don't have to worry about those pesky constitutional rights. Just think how much safer we would all be.

rogervzv
04-07-2011, 1:26 AM
I am assuming you mean "registered" because they were handguns.

Question: What if the person was old enough and had a handgun which was not "registered", as before 1990 you could have bought or be gifted a handgun without any registration? Now what then for the LE running serial numbers?

Great question. I have 3 firearms that were purchased respectively in 1965, 1980 and 1982. I doubt that they are on anyone's list anywhere.

hasserl
04-07-2011, 7:24 AM
LOL. You seem to think this is somehow an easy process. How wrong you are.

At the end of the day, what Ford8N said will happen, is probably going to happen. Namely, "nothing will happen to the officer. He will still get his pay check and that nice public pension."

Sure, you'll be compensated for damages and it will be a mark on his permanent record...IF you can prove what you say happened is in fact what happened. If it's just your word vs. cop's word, 99% of the time, you lose.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to come across as thinking any of it was easy. Chalk it up to the format. But how it all turns out may depend on if you give up your rights. The LEO is going to do what he is going to do, you can't stop him. If you maintain your rights, you do not answer his questions, you do not consent to a search, the chances are much better that he will issue to you the ticket he was going to anyway, then let you go on your way. You may have to wait for a supervisor to come out to the site. So be it, maintain your position. The biggest problems come from people voluntarily giving up their rights.

gatesbox
04-07-2011, 3:43 PM
Don't forget while you are not saying a damn thing to the cop and politely handing over your ID, insurance, and vehicle reg like a deaf mute, most cell phones have audio record features.....use it and lay your phone on the dash.....record everything, they would do it to you....and no you do not have to notify anyone that you are recording as long as one involved party is aware of the recording, namely the deaf mute with the AK in the trunk....

HondaMasterTech
04-07-2011, 5:29 PM
Originally Posted by donny You know, that absolutist constitutional stuff gets old. As does the "any gun, anytime, anywhere" nonsense. Many here whine about how the antis can't see the reality of living in modern society but they themselves are just as guilty. They see only black and white. No wonder we're considered nuts by the masses...

The problem is that too many people do not understand or appreciate the importance of The Consitution Of The United States Of America. There are too many people who don't understand how much worse things would be without this "stupid piece of paper".

That's the problem. The problem is NOT that educated people use the constitution the way it was intended.